Datasets:

DDDDZQ

/

imdb_reviews

like 0

The dark is rising!

tt0484562

It is adapted from the book. I did not read the book and maybe that is why I still enjoyed the movie. There are recent famous books adapted into movies like Eragon which is an unsuccessful movie compared to the rest but I like it better than The Seeker adaptation, another one is The Chronicles of Narnia: The lion, The witch and The wardrobe which is successful and has a sequel under it. The Seeker is this year adaptation. It did a fair job. It is not bad and it is not good. It depends on the viewer. If fans hate the unfaithful adaptation because it does not really follow the line of the story, then be it. Those who have not read the book like me would want to go and watch this movie for entertainment. It did make me a little interested but not enough.It does have its good and bad points. The director failed to bring the spark of the movie. The cast are okay, not too bad. The special effects are considered good for a fantasy movie. What I don't like it is that it is quite short, it just bring straight to the point and that is it. By the time, you will realise it is going to end like that with some short fantasy action. The story is like any fantasy movies. Fast and straight-forward plot. The talking seems long and boring followed by some short action. That is about it. Nothing else. Nothing so interesting to catch your eyes.Overall, it makes a harmless movie to watch in free time or the boring weekends. It is considered dark for children but they still can handle it. It seems long but it is short. Overall, I still think Eragon is better than this. Either you don't like it or like it, it does not matter. It is your view. In this case, I can't say anything. It is just okay.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0484562/reviews-73

ur12930537

title: The dark is rising! review: It is adapted from the book. I did not read the book and maybe that is why I still enjoyed the movie. There are recent famous books adapted into movies like Eragon which is an unsuccessful movie compared to the rest but I like it better than The Seeker adaptation, another one is The Chronicles of Narnia: The lion, The witch and The wardrobe which is successful and has a sequel under it. The Seeker is this year adaptation. It did a fair job. It is not bad and it is not good. It depends on the viewer. If fans hate the unfaithful adaptation because it does not really follow the line of the story, then be it. Those who have not read the book like me would want to go and watch this movie for entertainment. It did make me a little interested but not enough.It does have its good and bad points. The director failed to bring the spark of the movie. The cast are okay, not too bad. The special effects are considered good for a fantasy movie. What I don't like it is that it is quite short, it just bring straight to the point and that is it. By the time, you will realise it is going to end like that with some short fantasy action. The story is like any fantasy movies. Fast and straight-forward plot. The talking seems long and boring followed by some short action. That is about it. Nothing else. Nothing so interesting to catch your eyes.Overall, it makes a harmless movie to watch in free time or the boring weekends. It is considered dark for children but they still can handle it. It seems long but it is short. Overall, I still think Eragon is better than this. Either you don't like it or like it, it does not matter. It is your view. In this case, I can't say anything. It is just okay.

Bad attempt by the people that borough us Eragon.

tt0484562

Ever since Lord of the Rings became a hit and was internationally acclaimed all other studios are trying to do the same thing and I can tell you now we are not getting many successes out of these half hearted attempts. The decent ones are Chronicles of Narnia which Disney snapped up and Harry Potter from Warner Brothers. Even the Golden Compass was pretty good by the same people who did Lord of the Rings but then we get to the bad ones. Fox studios gave us Eragon which I still believe is the worst movie I have ever seen. Now Fox studios tries again with the Seeker: The Dark is Rising and I can tell you it is a lot better than Eragon. However, it still is not very good. The director filmed the movie and then realised that his movie was too short so he had a great idea of just making characters appear for no reason and just look scary. I have not read the books but from what I have heard it isn't even faithful their. Overall, it was a decent try but still not worth seeing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0484562/reviews-108

ur15303216

title: Bad attempt by the people that borough us Eragon. review: Ever since Lord of the Rings became a hit and was internationally acclaimed all other studios are trying to do the same thing and I can tell you now we are not getting many successes out of these half hearted attempts. The decent ones are Chronicles of Narnia which Disney snapped up and Harry Potter from Warner Brothers. Even the Golden Compass was pretty good by the same people who did Lord of the Rings but then we get to the bad ones. Fox studios gave us Eragon which I still believe is the worst movie I have ever seen. Now Fox studios tries again with the Seeker: The Dark is Rising and I can tell you it is a lot better than Eragon. However, it still is not very good. The director filmed the movie and then realised that his movie was too short so he had a great idea of just making characters appear for no reason and just look scary. I have not read the books but from what I have heard it isn't even faithful their. Overall, it was a decent try but still not worth seeing.

fantasy movie lacks magic

tt0484562

I've not read the novel this movie was based on, but do enjoy fantasy movies, and thought it looked interesting. But after seeing it...... oh dear.An American boy, Will living with his family in a small village somewhere in England, discovers on his 14th birthday that he's The Seeker for a group of old ones, who fight for the Light. He's got days to find them, before the Rider who fights for the Dark comes to full strength....As I said, I've not read the novel, but seeing the movie several things spring to mind. There are echoes of Harry Potter, the Russian movies Night Watch and Day Watch amongst other fantasy movies tossed into the mix. The script is all over the place, though perhaps this is due to some brutal editing as the movie seems disjointed in parts and the director can't resist having his camera moving all the time and with some quick editing it's almost as if he's trying to be Micheal Bay!! You also get the feeling that despite the production team's efforts, the movie didn't have the budget it really needed. There are a couple of so-called twists in the mix, but they are too obvious to work effectively.The acting isn't too bad, with special mention going to Ian McShane, as one of the elder ones but try as they might, they can't save the movie.As the first of a trio of fantasy movies coming out, the others being Stardust and The Golden Compass, I hope this is not a sign of things to come.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0484562/reviews-60

ur0680065

title: fantasy movie lacks magic review: I've not read the novel this movie was based on, but do enjoy fantasy movies, and thought it looked interesting. But after seeing it...... oh dear.An American boy, Will living with his family in a small village somewhere in England, discovers on his 14th birthday that he's The Seeker for a group of old ones, who fight for the Light. He's got days to find them, before the Rider who fights for the Dark comes to full strength....As I said, I've not read the novel, but seeing the movie several things spring to mind. There are echoes of Harry Potter, the Russian movies Night Watch and Day Watch amongst other fantasy movies tossed into the mix. The script is all over the place, though perhaps this is due to some brutal editing as the movie seems disjointed in parts and the director can't resist having his camera moving all the time and with some quick editing it's almost as if he's trying to be Micheal Bay!! You also get the feeling that despite the production team's efforts, the movie didn't have the budget it really needed. There are a couple of so-called twists in the mix, but they are too obvious to work effectively.The acting isn't too bad, with special mention going to Ian McShane, as one of the elder ones but try as they might, they can't save the movie.As the first of a trio of fantasy movies coming out, the others being Stardust and The Golden Compass, I hope this is not a sign of things to come.

You Just Can't Beat The Lord Of The Rings, Guys

tt0484562

The Sucker ...I mean THE SEEKER: THE DARK IS RISING is one of those putrid fantasy flicks that tries oh-so-hard to piggyback itself off of other successful fantasy films, but fails terribly in almost all departments.The premise...Dark and light battle. Dark wins. Light survives. Dark falters. Light wins. Darkness may still be out there waiting to win again. Cool CGI. Actors saying stilted and ridiculous lines. Corny ending. Close curtain.That's it. Really.Alexander Ludwig stars as Will Stanton, the final "seeker" in a line of immortals who's job it is is to seek out and find the signs that will unlock a puzzle responsible for defeating "The Darkness." The darkness is given form by The Rider (Christopher Eccleston, HEROES TV series) who's goal is to trick The Seeker and get the clues himself so that he can snuff out the light. The battles to and fro are not surprising and have little if any impact on the viewer. Some casually decent CGI makes for some interesting shots but it's all show with no substance.References to other great fantasy films are easily paralleled. Most notably is THE LORD OF THE RINGS with its own "dark riders" and their need to find "the one ring". Friends surround Frodo to protect him from this dangerous item (similar to how friends protect Will Stanton so that he can complete his own journey). But The Lord of the Rings had some of the best CGI, best acting, and best directing out there. The Seeker failed on almost all of those.I'm sure every actor in this lame film are praying it'll vanish, like a fantasy that never was. Let's help them out by not watching it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0484562/reviews-136

ur7704831

title: You Just Can't Beat The Lord Of The Rings, Guys review: The Sucker ...I mean THE SEEKER: THE DARK IS RISING is one of those putrid fantasy flicks that tries oh-so-hard to piggyback itself off of other successful fantasy films, but fails terribly in almost all departments.The premise...Dark and light battle. Dark wins. Light survives. Dark falters. Light wins. Darkness may still be out there waiting to win again. Cool CGI. Actors saying stilted and ridiculous lines. Corny ending. Close curtain.That's it. Really.Alexander Ludwig stars as Will Stanton, the final "seeker" in a line of immortals who's job it is is to seek out and find the signs that will unlock a puzzle responsible for defeating "The Darkness." The darkness is given form by The Rider (Christopher Eccleston, HEROES TV series) who's goal is to trick The Seeker and get the clues himself so that he can snuff out the light. The battles to and fro are not surprising and have little if any impact on the viewer. Some casually decent CGI makes for some interesting shots but it's all show with no substance.References to other great fantasy films are easily paralleled. Most notably is THE LORD OF THE RINGS with its own "dark riders" and their need to find "the one ring". Friends surround Frodo to protect him from this dangerous item (similar to how friends protect Will Stanton so that he can complete his own journey). But The Lord of the Rings had some of the best CGI, best acting, and best directing out there. The Seeker failed on almost all of those.I'm sure every actor in this lame film are praying it'll vanish, like a fantasy that never was. Let's help them out by not watching it.

Not having read the book, I found it average

tt0484562

I mean, come on, the acting was OK, the effects reasonable and the hybrid American British atmosphere was pretty terrifying :) I haven't read the books, but I have to admit that after seeing the movie, I hardly feel the need to do so. I mean, it had nothing special. Again the lonely boy with the special powers, be them mutant, technological, alien or magic, fighting a ridiculously shallow evil character. Who will win, I wonder? Oh dear, I hope I don't spoil anything.Bottom line: a simple minded boy fantasy-adventure, crafted for and watchable by only the prepubescent teens. If you haven't seen the movie yet, maybe reading the book would make more sense.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0484562/reviews-135

ur3146136

title: Not having read the book, I found it average review: I mean, come on, the acting was OK, the effects reasonable and the hybrid American British atmosphere was pretty terrifying :) I haven't read the books, but I have to admit that after seeing the movie, I hardly feel the need to do so. I mean, it had nothing special. Again the lonely boy with the special powers, be them mutant, technological, alien or magic, fighting a ridiculously shallow evil character. Who will win, I wonder? Oh dear, I hope I don't spoil anything.Bottom line: a simple minded boy fantasy-adventure, crafted for and watchable by only the prepubescent teens. If you haven't seen the movie yet, maybe reading the book would make more sense.

Journey to Jupiter with Cynthia McKinney

tt0484562

Sometimes, things are oversold. I remember this movie being promoted like crazy prior to its release in theaters. However, it busted and I wanted to know why. After viewing it, I understand completely. It simply failed to meet any expectations it has going for it.You get to meet a boy that, somehow, is the next 'Seeker' that will battle evil and stave it off for another 1,000 years. And to do this he must travel back across time, to and from, to collect things to help him in his battle. He seems to do everything wrong until the end when he finds the last thing he needs and defeats evil again.The action and story were very weak. I kept hoping things would really pick up and an intense battle would commence. And, also, I hoped that things would better explained better as time went along. But that did not happen so I was left watching a sub par movie.If you want to see it, go ahead. But nothing really interesting happens. "D+"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0484562/reviews-123

ur18271419

title: Journey to Jupiter with Cynthia McKinney review: Sometimes, things are oversold. I remember this movie being promoted like crazy prior to its release in theaters. However, it busted and I wanted to know why. After viewing it, I understand completely. It simply failed to meet any expectations it has going for it.You get to meet a boy that, somehow, is the next 'Seeker' that will battle evil and stave it off for another 1,000 years. And to do this he must travel back across time, to and from, to collect things to help him in his battle. He seems to do everything wrong until the end when he finds the last thing he needs and defeats evil again.The action and story were very weak. I kept hoping things would really pick up and an intense battle would commence. And, also, I hoped that things would better explained better as time went along. But that did not happen so I was left watching a sub par movie.If you want to see it, go ahead. But nothing really interesting happens. "D+"

The Dark is Boring!

tt0484562

Well, I seem to be in a minority here, as I haven't read the books by Susan Cooper upon which this movie is based. Apparently, having looked at a few of the comments, it is very loosely based on the books.So my review here will be of the movie as purely that. A movie. I had no preconceptions of what to expect going into this film. No idea of what to expect. My only thought was that it might be something akin to the Spiderwick Chronicles.So what is right and wrong with this movie? Well, there isn't much right. I found Christopher Ecclestone enjoyable to watch and...ermm....that's it really. Ian McShane struggled with his role and the dialog was pretty poor in places.But the worst thing about the movie is how unexciting it was.You'd think the end of the world would make people dynamic and put them in a 'take-charge' mood. Not here. Everyone kinds of just bleats about the imminent victory of the Dark, but never does much about it.And the signs? Really? They were all in the same village but, after years of living there, none of the Elders have found any of them? Suspension of disbelief - FAIL.Likewise, the way the Rider and the Seeker grow in power so that they can never dominate each other is also rather trite and contrived. And that brings me to another point about such movies.Why does the bad guy never resort to the simple expedient of killing the hero by normal means? It always has to involve some convoluted plot involving magic and sorcery! I know it would make for a short film if the bad guys actually thought about what they were doing, but it just makes them look even more ridiculous than they are when they do dumb crap like that.So, anyway, the movie grips you about as well as a mechanic with oil-covered hands grips a wrench. Which is to say not at all. Your attention will wander many times during the film and you won't notice the lack of attention in understanding what is going on.Dull is the best way to describe the movie as a whole. Dull and pointless. I'm sure the books are much, much better. But the movie.... do yourself a favor and ignore it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0484562/reviews-169

ur1980092

title: The Dark is Boring! review: Well, I seem to be in a minority here, as I haven't read the books by Susan Cooper upon which this movie is based. Apparently, having looked at a few of the comments, it is very loosely based on the books.So my review here will be of the movie as purely that. A movie. I had no preconceptions of what to expect going into this film. No idea of what to expect. My only thought was that it might be something akin to the Spiderwick Chronicles.So what is right and wrong with this movie? Well, there isn't much right. I found Christopher Ecclestone enjoyable to watch and...ermm....that's it really. Ian McShane struggled with his role and the dialog was pretty poor in places.But the worst thing about the movie is how unexciting it was.You'd think the end of the world would make people dynamic and put them in a 'take-charge' mood. Not here. Everyone kinds of just bleats about the imminent victory of the Dark, but never does much about it.And the signs? Really? They were all in the same village but, after years of living there, none of the Elders have found any of them? Suspension of disbelief - FAIL.Likewise, the way the Rider and the Seeker grow in power so that they can never dominate each other is also rather trite and contrived. And that brings me to another point about such movies.Why does the bad guy never resort to the simple expedient of killing the hero by normal means? It always has to involve some convoluted plot involving magic and sorcery! I know it would make for a short film if the bad guys actually thought about what they were doing, but it just makes them look even more ridiculous than they are when they do dumb crap like that.So, anyway, the movie grips you about as well as a mechanic with oil-covered hands grips a wrench. Which is to say not at all. Your attention will wander many times during the film and you won't notice the lack of attention in understanding what is going on.Dull is the best way to describe the movie as a whole. Dull and pointless. I'm sure the books are much, much better. But the movie.... do yourself a favor and ignore it.

Potter's Crown is Safe

tt0484562

Every year we get a new fantasy movie that is supposed to be the "new Lord of the Rings" or the "new Harry Potter", and every year the contenders are shunned aside as they are most clearly not the next big fantasy epics. So far we've had The Chronicles of Narnia, probably the most successful one to date, Brdieg to Terabithia, superb movie but its not the next big thing, and Eragon, an unmitigated disaster of a movie that I'm ashamed to say I enjoyed on first viewing. And now we have The Dark is Rising, the movie that Fox obviously hoped would be their big fantasy epic after Eragon failed so dramatically. So does is it is going to be the next big fantasy series? Errm, definitely not. Firstly the movie flopped big time in the US secondly judging by the lack of people in my screen today its going to flop in the UK and finally its not that good a movie. Admiteddly its better than Eragon, at least the actors are all half decent here and the movie at worst is still watchable. In fact this is an above average movie, but it just isn't the next big fantasy series because it just isn't as interesting. Love or loathe Potter but the concept is infinitely much better than about a boy who travels in time to find some sign thingies and prevent "the dark" from rising. The Dark is Rising is decent Half Term fare, and the movie isn't long enough to bore in you. In fact there are some impressive set pieces towards the end.The cast are actually surprisingly decent as a whole, however there are a couple who let the side down. The main kid of the movie, played by Alexander Ludwig is not even a fifth as annoying as he appears in the trailer. In fact I'd go as far to say he does a pretty good job in the role, sure the endless amounts of times he says "awesome" really grates after a while, but for the most part, especially in some of the more dramatic moments near the end, he does a passable job. Christopher Eccleston does a good job on villain duties as "The Rider." Sure he has some clumpy dialogue, some stuff near the end is plain ludicrous what he says, but he does have a decent amount of presence and he definitely steals every scene he is in. However, in my eyes the best actor of the movie is Ian McShane as Will's mentor. Sure he pretty much is the obligatory mythology explainer of the movie, which means way too many philosophical lines for his own good, but McShaine is a competent enough actor to make the lines work well. Frances Conroy also does a decent job as Will's other mentor, she's just such a likable actress in the film you can't help but like her. Of course though one of the child actors has to let the side down, and that role falls down to Amelia Warner in the most pointless role of the movie. Also all of Will's brothers gets their moments to irritate the hell out of the audience.The storyline of the movie is pretty mediocre to be honest. Boy has to travel through time, well that's pretty debatable as the time travel sequences are pretty pitiful apart from a cool bit involving snakes, and find these signs to save the world. The storyline is relatively simple, well apart from a little twist near the end that is blatantly obvious from the get go. Thankfuly the interesting characters and set pieces redeem the movie. The snake sequence is pretty well done and a few scenes involving crows impress (more on the damn crows later). But its the final stuff that impresses most and sticks in memory longest. But the movie does have an obsession with crows. I get that they are supposed to be the evil things and represent darkness, but a bit where a mall guard semi-mutates into a crow had me in hysterics as it looked absurd. The script of the movie is pretty poor at times, especially some of the mythology filling in bits, and as I've mentioned the ending is just pretty terrible. Anyone with epilepsy cannot see the movie as the final battle is nit so much a fight but lots of flashing lights while people move, it hurt my head a hell of a lot just watching it.The Dark is Rising is certainly not going to be the next big fantasy series, so for now Potter's crown is very safe. If you want a dumb entertaining movie this may just entertain you enough. And if you found Eragin tolerable this will be a masterpiece to you. However don't expect anything much as this has moments of baffling lameness.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0484562/reviews-61

ur13849221

title: Potter's Crown is Safe review: Every year we get a new fantasy movie that is supposed to be the "new Lord of the Rings" or the "new Harry Potter", and every year the contenders are shunned aside as they are most clearly not the next big fantasy epics. So far we've had The Chronicles of Narnia, probably the most successful one to date, Brdieg to Terabithia, superb movie but its not the next big thing, and Eragon, an unmitigated disaster of a movie that I'm ashamed to say I enjoyed on first viewing. And now we have The Dark is Rising, the movie that Fox obviously hoped would be their big fantasy epic after Eragon failed so dramatically. So does is it is going to be the next big fantasy series? Errm, definitely not. Firstly the movie flopped big time in the US secondly judging by the lack of people in my screen today its going to flop in the UK and finally its not that good a movie. Admiteddly its better than Eragon, at least the actors are all half decent here and the movie at worst is still watchable. In fact this is an above average movie, but it just isn't the next big fantasy series because it just isn't as interesting. Love or loathe Potter but the concept is infinitely much better than about a boy who travels in time to find some sign thingies and prevent "the dark" from rising. The Dark is Rising is decent Half Term fare, and the movie isn't long enough to bore in you. In fact there are some impressive set pieces towards the end.The cast are actually surprisingly decent as a whole, however there are a couple who let the side down. The main kid of the movie, played by Alexander Ludwig is not even a fifth as annoying as he appears in the trailer. In fact I'd go as far to say he does a pretty good job in the role, sure the endless amounts of times he says "awesome" really grates after a while, but for the most part, especially in some of the more dramatic moments near the end, he does a passable job. Christopher Eccleston does a good job on villain duties as "The Rider." Sure he has some clumpy dialogue, some stuff near the end is plain ludicrous what he says, but he does have a decent amount of presence and he definitely steals every scene he is in. However, in my eyes the best actor of the movie is Ian McShane as Will's mentor. Sure he pretty much is the obligatory mythology explainer of the movie, which means way too many philosophical lines for his own good, but McShaine is a competent enough actor to make the lines work well. Frances Conroy also does a decent job as Will's other mentor, she's just such a likable actress in the film you can't help but like her. Of course though one of the child actors has to let the side down, and that role falls down to Amelia Warner in the most pointless role of the movie. Also all of Will's brothers gets their moments to irritate the hell out of the audience.The storyline of the movie is pretty mediocre to be honest. Boy has to travel through time, well that's pretty debatable as the time travel sequences are pretty pitiful apart from a cool bit involving snakes, and find these signs to save the world. The storyline is relatively simple, well apart from a little twist near the end that is blatantly obvious from the get go. Thankfuly the interesting characters and set pieces redeem the movie. The snake sequence is pretty well done and a few scenes involving crows impress (more on the damn crows later). But its the final stuff that impresses most and sticks in memory longest. But the movie does have an obsession with crows. I get that they are supposed to be the evil things and represent darkness, but a bit where a mall guard semi-mutates into a crow had me in hysterics as it looked absurd. The script of the movie is pretty poor at times, especially some of the mythology filling in bits, and as I've mentioned the ending is just pretty terrible. Anyone with epilepsy cannot see the movie as the final battle is nit so much a fight but lots of flashing lights while people move, it hurt my head a hell of a lot just watching it.The Dark is Rising is certainly not going to be the next big fantasy series, so for now Potter's crown is very safe. If you want a dumb entertaining movie this may just entertain you enough. And if you found Eragin tolerable this will be a masterpiece to you. However don't expect anything much as this has moments of baffling lameness.

Completely Fun

tt0484562

We viewed this work at Movies on the Parkway in Sevierville, TN; our hometown theater.This film begins with a "folded" feeling not unlike the first Neverending Story in that the boy discovers he is in the story...that, indeed, he IS the story. From that point on, it runs like a younger version of The Covenant, with some Harry Potter thrown in.That is not to say this movie felt in any way like a rip-off or a clone of those other movies, but a definite kinship exists - in a good way. This movie stands alone and does not borrow too heavily from any of the aforementioned works. In fact, we found it refreshingly warm and well-written, while managing to demonstrate a tense and edgy element of suspense, but not enough to necessitate strong parental monitoring.I, personally, love the character development in this production via Will's siblings. The family home felt natural and real, as did the children. Especially "Guen." These child actors will do well if they continue to pursue their careers.All in all? We found this movie completely fun, well written, and expertly executed. This is a great viewing, regardless of age, but probably not a good choice as a Friday night movie for "the guys," unless the guys are into young-adult fantasies.It rates a solid 8.0/10 from...the Fiend :.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0484562/reviews-38

ur2626332

title: Completely Fun review: We viewed this work at Movies on the Parkway in Sevierville, TN; our hometown theater.This film begins with a "folded" feeling not unlike the first Neverending Story in that the boy discovers he is in the story...that, indeed, he IS the story. From that point on, it runs like a younger version of The Covenant, with some Harry Potter thrown in.That is not to say this movie felt in any way like a rip-off or a clone of those other movies, but a definite kinship exists - in a good way. This movie stands alone and does not borrow too heavily from any of the aforementioned works. In fact, we found it refreshingly warm and well-written, while managing to demonstrate a tense and edgy element of suspense, but not enough to necessitate strong parental monitoring.I, personally, love the character development in this production via Will's siblings. The family home felt natural and real, as did the children. Especially "Guen." These child actors will do well if they continue to pursue their careers.All in all? We found this movie completely fun, well written, and expertly executed. This is a great viewing, regardless of age, but probably not a good choice as a Friday night movie for "the guys," unless the guys are into young-adult fantasies.It rates a solid 8.0/10 from...the Fiend :.

Scorsese Missed the Mark

tt0217505

Martin Scorsese is working with a subject that suits him to a tee -- gang warfare in the streets of New York -- and the film's got his trademark kinetic style -- something's always happening on screen. So why does the whole film feel so leaden and uninvolving? "Gangs of New York" should have been kick ass. Instead, the most it got out of me was a shrug of the shoulders and a "meh." Daniel Day-Lewis acts up a storm and is certainly something to see as Bill "The Butcher," the vicious leader of one of the film's eponymous gangs. But unfortunately, the story takes place through the perspective of Leonardo DiCaprio's character, and DiCaprio, usually a fine actor, simply isn't up to the task here. Cameron Diaz, meanwhile, shouldn't be let within 100 feet of a period piece.The film's period look is detailed and authentic -- there's an awful lot of mud in those 19th Century New York streets. But the overall impression is that Scorsese missed the mark with this one.Grade: B-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1180

ur4532636

title: Scorsese Missed the Mark review: Martin Scorsese is working with a subject that suits him to a tee -- gang warfare in the streets of New York -- and the film's got his trademark kinetic style -- something's always happening on screen. So why does the whole film feel so leaden and uninvolving? "Gangs of New York" should have been kick ass. Instead, the most it got out of me was a shrug of the shoulders and a "meh." Daniel Day-Lewis acts up a storm and is certainly something to see as Bill "The Butcher," the vicious leader of one of the film's eponymous gangs. But unfortunately, the story takes place through the perspective of Leonardo DiCaprio's character, and DiCaprio, usually a fine actor, simply isn't up to the task here. Cameron Diaz, meanwhile, shouldn't be let within 100 feet of a period piece.The film's period look is detailed and authentic -- there's an awful lot of mud in those 19th Century New York streets. But the overall impression is that Scorsese missed the mark with this one.Grade: B-

Pompous disjointed mess

tt0217505

I think a lot of people are going easy on this film, as the name Scorcese appears on the credits. People are trying to find something that clearly isn't there.In my opinion, this film has nothing going for it. Everything about it is bad or wrong. The acting, the script, the editing, the sets, everything.A lot of people mention DDL acting as brilliant, when in fact all he does is overact a very unbelievable character. I don't see too much skill in that. In fact his whole character, like all the characters in this film, are very poorly developed. In reality no one is just bad and no one is just good. DDL's one dimensional character is just portrayed as nasty.The story itself, what little is there, is a presented in such a claustrophobic manner. None the of sets look realistic, it always feels like a studio set. Even though I know it was made on a huge back lot. One theme that bothered me was this simplistic racism in the movie. The Irish were good, the Irish liked black people, etc, where as everyone else was evil and racist.I'm sure in the time period that murder and suffering were common place, but I'm also sure compassion and caring existed to some degree, surely even in those times there was some form of law. Overall a mess of a film, it had no punch, no direction, poor acting and no real story of mention.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-552

ur0382572

title: Pompous disjointed mess review: I think a lot of people are going easy on this film, as the name Scorcese appears on the credits. People are trying to find something that clearly isn't there.In my opinion, this film has nothing going for it. Everything about it is bad or wrong. The acting, the script, the editing, the sets, everything.A lot of people mention DDL acting as brilliant, when in fact all he does is overact a very unbelievable character. I don't see too much skill in that. In fact his whole character, like all the characters in this film, are very poorly developed. In reality no one is just bad and no one is just good. DDL's one dimensional character is just portrayed as nasty.The story itself, what little is there, is a presented in such a claustrophobic manner. None the of sets look realistic, it always feels like a studio set. Even though I know it was made on a huge back lot. One theme that bothered me was this simplistic racism in the movie. The Irish were good, the Irish liked black people, etc, where as everyone else was evil and racist.I'm sure in the time period that murder and suffering were common place, but I'm also sure compassion and caring existed to some degree, surely even in those times there was some form of law. Overall a mess of a film, it had no punch, no direction, poor acting and no real story of mention.

Ugly and Overlong

tt0217505

Gangs engage in turf war in 1860s New York. This is yet another example of Scorsese's disturbing obsession with violence. The film starts and ends with ludicrous battle scenes. In between there are some good moments but there is too much padding, needlessly extending the running time to nearly three hours. It's obvious from the outset how it's going to end, but the narrative meanders and is often over-the-top. The gritty atmosphere of mid 19th century New York is well captured, but the director's depiction of 19th century New York was more impressive in "The Age of Innocence," also featuring Day-Lewis. Here Day-Lewis chews the scenery as a ruthless butcher. DiCaprio looks intense.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1204

ur2590596

title: Ugly and Overlong review: Gangs engage in turf war in 1860s New York. This is yet another example of Scorsese's disturbing obsession with violence. The film starts and ends with ludicrous battle scenes. In between there are some good moments but there is too much padding, needlessly extending the running time to nearly three hours. It's obvious from the outset how it's going to end, but the narrative meanders and is often over-the-top. The gritty atmosphere of mid 19th century New York is well captured, but the director's depiction of 19th century New York was more impressive in "The Age of Innocence," also featuring Day-Lewis. Here Day-Lewis chews the scenery as a ruthless butcher. DiCaprio looks intense.

Put Scorsese Back on the Map.

tt0217505

Scorsese was on a hot streak in the 70s, then on-and-off in the 80s and 90s. This 2002 masterpiece caused Scorsese to be on a hot streak again like in the 70s. It was also the first movie he did with Leonardo DiCaprio--the start of a great team. The story isn't very original and the movie is too long. The near three hours could easily be condensed to a clean two hours. A regular revenge story with weak subplots that can be confusing as they become blurry. The movie is about a boy who witnesses his father being murdered by the ruthless Bill "Butcher" Cuttings (Day-Lewis). Sixteen years later, the boy (now Leo) returns to vow his father's murder. But rival gangs, love, loyalty, and Cuttings' ascension makes the job difficult. The acting is uncanny by everybody. But Day-Lewis steals the show. The riots and action are extremely brutal, but very entertaining. As I mentioned before, the movie is too long, but the entertainment and movie making really make up for the slowness. Condensed, this would be in the Top 250 and be considered a Scorsese masterpiece. I don't find this to be a masterpiece, but it is very close to it. Like The Outsiders--it was as close to being a masterpiece without actually being one. But still, I really think that this deserves more. It should be considered more iconic, and more or a landmark in all the aspects this has.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1261

ur31261952

title: Put Scorsese Back on the Map. review: Scorsese was on a hot streak in the 70s, then on-and-off in the 80s and 90s. This 2002 masterpiece caused Scorsese to be on a hot streak again like in the 70s. It was also the first movie he did with Leonardo DiCaprio--the start of a great team. The story isn't very original and the movie is too long. The near three hours could easily be condensed to a clean two hours. A regular revenge story with weak subplots that can be confusing as they become blurry. The movie is about a boy who witnesses his father being murdered by the ruthless Bill "Butcher" Cuttings (Day-Lewis). Sixteen years later, the boy (now Leo) returns to vow his father's murder. But rival gangs, love, loyalty, and Cuttings' ascension makes the job difficult. The acting is uncanny by everybody. But Day-Lewis steals the show. The riots and action are extremely brutal, but very entertaining. As I mentioned before, the movie is too long, but the entertainment and movie making really make up for the slowness. Condensed, this would be in the Top 250 and be considered a Scorsese masterpiece. I don't find this to be a masterpiece, but it is very close to it. Like The Outsiders--it was as close to being a masterpiece without actually being one. But still, I really think that this deserves more. It should be considered more iconic, and more or a landmark in all the aspects this has.

Frankengangs!

tt0217505

No argument! Martin Scorsese is a wonderful filmmaker, film historian, and a most likable fellow. I like him. I can't help it. Yet, I do not like most of his films. This one is debatably an exception, perhaps saved by inch-fractions primarily by the spellbinding, remorselessly superb acting chops of Daniel Day-Lewis. Curiously he is an Irish actor from Ireland playing an Irish immigrant-hating American of English ancestry, William Cutting, who in real life was no longer living during the final climactic scenes of this film. The shrugs do not end there. Leonardo DiCaprio (now, thankfully, finally, a grown man playing one) plays an Irish American (who struggles with his Irish accent throughout the film).The film ends with the NYC Draft Riots of 1863. Without drawing up a long list of historical inconsistencies and equivocations, as one example, famed Tribune Editor, Horace Greeley, who was only 52 at the time of these riots, is depicted as a wizened, old man in a long, white beard. In fact, he was only 61 when he died nine years later. Although the chances are that Greeley was brought into the story for his abolitionist views this remains unclear in this release cut of the film. Generally, this story of the search for vengeance by a boy who sees his father killed during a gang riot never weaves into a full, coherent scenario. The climactic backdrop of the New York City draft riots, in truth were fomented primarily by outraged laborers of mixed nationalities, e.g. of both Irish and German descent, against the importation of poorly paid blacks. These riots that were also given support by the Lincoln hating Tammany Hall-corrupt Democratic Party of the city of that time are not accurately presented here nor clearly melded into the story despite the fast intercuts of flyers and posters of the period. The films' depictions of US Navy Frigates (perhaps on the East River?) firing cannons into Manhattan is news to me, a born New Yorker who has lifelong followed New York history. Toward the end GANGS feels just like what it is a contrivance that upon departing leaves in its wake an empty feeling. The production values, design, ambiance and atmosphere are handsome. However this film, claimed by some overwrought hype writers, as the "Birth of New York" is better described as myopic mayhem. If relentless brutality is your cup of tea, try it. Who knows? You might like it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-85

ur0028288

title: Frankengangs! review: No argument! Martin Scorsese is a wonderful filmmaker, film historian, and a most likable fellow. I like him. I can't help it. Yet, I do not like most of his films. This one is debatably an exception, perhaps saved by inch-fractions primarily by the spellbinding, remorselessly superb acting chops of Daniel Day-Lewis. Curiously he is an Irish actor from Ireland playing an Irish immigrant-hating American of English ancestry, William Cutting, who in real life was no longer living during the final climactic scenes of this film. The shrugs do not end there. Leonardo DiCaprio (now, thankfully, finally, a grown man playing one) plays an Irish American (who struggles with his Irish accent throughout the film).The film ends with the NYC Draft Riots of 1863. Without drawing up a long list of historical inconsistencies and equivocations, as one example, famed Tribune Editor, Horace Greeley, who was only 52 at the time of these riots, is depicted as a wizened, old man in a long, white beard. In fact, he was only 61 when he died nine years later. Although the chances are that Greeley was brought into the story for his abolitionist views this remains unclear in this release cut of the film. Generally, this story of the search for vengeance by a boy who sees his father killed during a gang riot never weaves into a full, coherent scenario. The climactic backdrop of the New York City draft riots, in truth were fomented primarily by outraged laborers of mixed nationalities, e.g. of both Irish and German descent, against the importation of poorly paid blacks. These riots that were also given support by the Lincoln hating Tammany Hall-corrupt Democratic Party of the city of that time are not accurately presented here nor clearly melded into the story despite the fast intercuts of flyers and posters of the period. The films' depictions of US Navy Frigates (perhaps on the East River?) firing cannons into Manhattan is news to me, a born New Yorker who has lifelong followed New York history. Toward the end GANGS feels just like what it is a contrivance that upon departing leaves in its wake an empty feeling. The production values, design, ambiance and atmosphere are handsome. However this film, claimed by some overwrought hype writers, as the "Birth of New York" is better described as myopic mayhem. If relentless brutality is your cup of tea, try it. Who knows? You might like it.

Martin Scorcese sure hates short movies

tt0217505

Daniel Day Lewis and Leonardo DiCaprio star in this epic, retelling the early days of the struggle for New York City.Lewis stars as "Bill the Butcher" a patriotic local who runs the Five Points, a treasured piece of local ground. His name is "Bill the Butcher" because he is a butcher, literally, but he doesn't restrict his carving skills to animals, if you get my drift. Most are scared of him and get out of his way. SInce he defeated Priest Vallon and the Irish in 1842, things have been easier for him. That is until "Amsterdam" (Di Caprio), comes into town. He strikes up a relationship with Bill, but it's obvious he has a past (because all people have a past), but his past is special because his dad was....."The Priest", who Bill killed in 1842!!!! I'm not usually a huge fan of period pieces, but this was pretty solid. A great cast, also starring Liam Nesson, probably in his finest work since "The Phantom Menace" and Cameron Diaz, in probably her best work since "The Mask". Lewis steals the show though in an outstanding performance, and is solidly backed by Leo.Warning: there's some strong violence, although I must say it's not as bad as I'd heard.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1010

ur7472847

title: Martin Scorcese sure hates short movies review: Daniel Day Lewis and Leonardo DiCaprio star in this epic, retelling the early days of the struggle for New York City.Lewis stars as "Bill the Butcher" a patriotic local who runs the Five Points, a treasured piece of local ground. His name is "Bill the Butcher" because he is a butcher, literally, but he doesn't restrict his carving skills to animals, if you get my drift. Most are scared of him and get out of his way. SInce he defeated Priest Vallon and the Irish in 1842, things have been easier for him. That is until "Amsterdam" (Di Caprio), comes into town. He strikes up a relationship with Bill, but it's obvious he has a past (because all people have a past), but his past is special because his dad was....."The Priest", who Bill killed in 1842!!!! I'm not usually a huge fan of period pieces, but this was pretty solid. A great cast, also starring Liam Nesson, probably in his finest work since "The Phantom Menace" and Cameron Diaz, in probably her best work since "The Mask". Lewis steals the show though in an outstanding performance, and is solidly backed by Leo.Warning: there's some strong violence, although I must say it's not as bad as I'd heard.

long,but doesn't feel like it

tt0217505

this is a Martin Scorsese epic,and it certainly has that epic feel.i'm not sure how accurate it is historically,or if things really looked the way they do in the movie.i still liked the look of it.to me,it seems a lot of work went into the whole production and it shows.Daniel Day Lewis is astonishing(nothing new for him).Leonardo DiCaprio was also good.Cameron Diaz was not bad,but she didn't really impress me all that much.her character wasn't as substantial as it could have been.like in many movie,there's a good supporting cast.the movie is brutally violent,which is probably an accurate depiction of that time.it is over two and a half hours long,but it doesn't feel like it.i found myself becoming very quickly and easily involved in the story,a sign of a good movie.i wouldn't call it a masterpiece,but it is a very good movie.for me,Gangs of New York is an 8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1118

ur11423174

title: long,but doesn't feel like it review: this is a Martin Scorsese epic,and it certainly has that epic feel.i'm not sure how accurate it is historically,or if things really looked the way they do in the movie.i still liked the look of it.to me,it seems a lot of work went into the whole production and it shows.Daniel Day Lewis is astonishing(nothing new for him).Leonardo DiCaprio was also good.Cameron Diaz was not bad,but she didn't really impress me all that much.her character wasn't as substantial as it could have been.like in many movie,there's a good supporting cast.the movie is brutally violent,which is probably an accurate depiction of that time.it is over two and a half hours long,but it doesn't feel like it.i found myself becoming very quickly and easily involved in the story,a sign of a good movie.i wouldn't call it a masterpiece,but it is a very good movie.for me,Gangs of New York is an 8/10

Interesting Piece of New York History

tt0217505

"Gangs of New York" is an interesting take on the Draft Riots that spanned between 1846-1863. It's high on entertainment, compelling, gratuitously violent but never disappoints you during the two hours and forty five duration. The Draft Riots was an endless feud that occurred at the time when corrupt political activists of the Tammany Hall took over the crime laden city, and the epic battles by Irish gangs in the Manhattan area that sets off the infamous draft riots. A young man known Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) befriends a sneaky pickpocket (Cameron Diaz) to get even the crazed Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis) who assassinated his father. The story was enthralling and the pacing was very subtle.Daniel Day-Lewis really lit the screen as the leading antagonist and was just natural in his performance as Bill the Butcher. And even though I'm not one of DiCaprio's biggest fans, but I have to pay the devil his dues, it is definitely one of his finest outings from him where at the times he was trying out for more older, mature roles. Though not ready for an Oscar, DiCaprio was really convincing as Amsterdam. Cameron Diaz was also wonderful in her smaller role. Director Martin Scorsese takes another angle of the New York's underworld, but adding another direction to it. This time we are sent back to the 19th century where street gangs came in fruition. His message is delivered to us flawlessly. I think he's among one of the best directors then and now. If you're in the mood for visual art, then look no further, because "Gangs of New York" offers scintillating cinematography, the art direction is a treat to the eyes, and the costumes were accurate and authentic that truly fits the period well. Along with some skillful carpentry, Scorsese has recreated 19th Century New York like it was its own city itself. The setting juxtaposes itself between factual and fictional depiction of events as well as the use of clapboard building and very tall hats, which has intentions for some over-the-top reminder of what's taking place in this dreadful period in New York history. It's stunning to think that this movie garnered 10 Oscar nominations but ended up getting zilch. It truly is a very underrated movie. And even through all the chastising from the critics, I think this movie is one of the best movies of 2002.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1194

ur12327230

title: Interesting Piece of New York History review: "Gangs of New York" is an interesting take on the Draft Riots that spanned between 1846-1863. It's high on entertainment, compelling, gratuitously violent but never disappoints you during the two hours and forty five duration. The Draft Riots was an endless feud that occurred at the time when corrupt political activists of the Tammany Hall took over the crime laden city, and the epic battles by Irish gangs in the Manhattan area that sets off the infamous draft riots. A young man known Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) befriends a sneaky pickpocket (Cameron Diaz) to get even the crazed Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis) who assassinated his father. The story was enthralling and the pacing was very subtle.Daniel Day-Lewis really lit the screen as the leading antagonist and was just natural in his performance as Bill the Butcher. And even though I'm not one of DiCaprio's biggest fans, but I have to pay the devil his dues, it is definitely one of his finest outings from him where at the times he was trying out for more older, mature roles. Though not ready for an Oscar, DiCaprio was really convincing as Amsterdam. Cameron Diaz was also wonderful in her smaller role. Director Martin Scorsese takes another angle of the New York's underworld, but adding another direction to it. This time we are sent back to the 19th century where street gangs came in fruition. His message is delivered to us flawlessly. I think he's among one of the best directors then and now. If you're in the mood for visual art, then look no further, because "Gangs of New York" offers scintillating cinematography, the art direction is a treat to the eyes, and the costumes were accurate and authentic that truly fits the period well. Along with some skillful carpentry, Scorsese has recreated 19th Century New York like it was its own city itself. The setting juxtaposes itself between factual and fictional depiction of events as well as the use of clapboard building and very tall hats, which has intentions for some over-the-top reminder of what's taking place in this dreadful period in New York history. It's stunning to think that this movie garnered 10 Oscar nominations but ended up getting zilch. It truly is a very underrated movie. And even through all the chastising from the critics, I think this movie is one of the best movies of 2002.

Blood without grit

tt0217505

Martin Scorcese had wanted to make 'Gangs of New York' for many years; but given his exceptional track record as a director, it's a surprisingly middle-brow epic, albeit one that entertains throughout its great length. Like his best movies, it focuses on the criminal underclass, and contains considerable quantities of violence. But whereas Scorcese's most famous works are modern, naturalistic in feel, feature anti-heroes and debunk the myth of nobility and honour among thieves, 'Gangs of New York' is not only a period drama but also theatrical (in dialogue and construction), has a conventionally hero-centric story and indulges the myths that its predecessors iconclastically rejected. In fact, with a classic Hollywood love story, an interest in class warfare, some psychopathic villains, an apocalyptic backdrop to an intimate climax, and Leonardo diCaprio wandering round unconvincingly like a refugee from the 21st century, the film has even something of the feel of 'Titanic'; whereas the massed battles in hellish cellars and work-houses even bring to mind 'The Lord of the Rings'. The film is deeper than those two movies; the surprising thing is that the differences are so small.One can point to a few oddities as well. Unlike most American films, the settled Americans (the "natives") are the bad guys (and the Irish immigrants the heroes); yet the lead native is played by (Irishman) Daniel Day Lewis, while (the American) diCaprio is chief among the Irish. And diCaprio's face shows a remarkable ability to recover from a supposedly disfiguring wound. These are minor points. The more substantive criticisms are more objections to the type of film Scorcese has chosen to make, rather than to its skillful execution: in telling the tale of a forgotten part of American history, he has done so symbolically, filming a story both grand and personal, but creating a world which never quite feels as real as that of 'Mean Streets' or 'Taxi Driver'. The result is a film that is fabulous in the word's original sense: a 19th century fable. But I prefer his grittier works.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1020

ur2082018

title: Blood without grit review: Martin Scorcese had wanted to make 'Gangs of New York' for many years; but given his exceptional track record as a director, it's a surprisingly middle-brow epic, albeit one that entertains throughout its great length. Like his best movies, it focuses on the criminal underclass, and contains considerable quantities of violence. But whereas Scorcese's most famous works are modern, naturalistic in feel, feature anti-heroes and debunk the myth of nobility and honour among thieves, 'Gangs of New York' is not only a period drama but also theatrical (in dialogue and construction), has a conventionally hero-centric story and indulges the myths that its predecessors iconclastically rejected. In fact, with a classic Hollywood love story, an interest in class warfare, some psychopathic villains, an apocalyptic backdrop to an intimate climax, and Leonardo diCaprio wandering round unconvincingly like a refugee from the 21st century, the film has even something of the feel of 'Titanic'; whereas the massed battles in hellish cellars and work-houses even bring to mind 'The Lord of the Rings'. The film is deeper than those two movies; the surprising thing is that the differences are so small.One can point to a few oddities as well. Unlike most American films, the settled Americans (the "natives") are the bad guys (and the Irish immigrants the heroes); yet the lead native is played by (Irishman) Daniel Day Lewis, while (the American) diCaprio is chief among the Irish. And diCaprio's face shows a remarkable ability to recover from a supposedly disfiguring wound. These are minor points. The more substantive criticisms are more objections to the type of film Scorcese has chosen to make, rather than to its skillful execution: in telling the tale of a forgotten part of American history, he has done so symbolically, filming a story both grand and personal, but creating a world which never quite feels as real as that of 'Mean Streets' or 'Taxi Driver'. The result is a film that is fabulous in the word's original sense: a 19th century fable. But I prefer his grittier works.

One great Scorsese epic

tt0217505

When Martin Scorsese directed his dream American epic about 1860's New York, I expected a masterpiece and got one. With Daniel Day-Lewis leading an outstanding cast that includes Leonardo Dicaprio, Cameron Diaz, Jim Broadbent, Liam Neeson, Brendan Gleeson, and John C. Reilly, there's no going wrong. Lewis is spellbinding in the semi-central role and the epic sweep is outstanding. Scorsese normally makes films not normally associated with epics, but this time he does and the gamble pays off. Powerful, sweeping, well-acted, and directed by a great master at the peak of his always provocative form, Gangs of New York is as essential as any Martin Scorsese masterpiece.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1207

ur26550510

title: One great Scorsese epic review: When Martin Scorsese directed his dream American epic about 1860's New York, I expected a masterpiece and got one. With Daniel Day-Lewis leading an outstanding cast that includes Leonardo Dicaprio, Cameron Diaz, Jim Broadbent, Liam Neeson, Brendan Gleeson, and John C. Reilly, there's no going wrong. Lewis is spellbinding in the semi-central role and the epic sweep is outstanding. Scorsese normally makes films not normally associated with epics, but this time he does and the gamble pays off. Powerful, sweeping, well-acted, and directed by a great master at the peak of his always provocative form, Gangs of New York is as essential as any Martin Scorsese masterpiece.

A masterpiece of semi-fictional history

tt0217505

It saddens me that some younger audience members who went to see Gangs of New York have short attention span - constantly fiddling, twentysomething couples making out and getting up in the middle of the movie for restrooms and refreshments. This movie, despite starring Leonardo DiCaprio, is NOT similar to Titanic, another semi-historical fiction film. Both movies are different and unique. Scorsese's vision is far more terrifyingly realistic and violent than Cameron's vision of historical tragedy and doomed romance.That said, Gangs of New York does have its share of flaws - just like Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line which is one of my favorite films - but frankly who cares about what the majority of film critics have to complain that this film is the best of the best in Scorsese's career on par with good but overrated films Raging Bull and Goodfellas? For the record, my favorite movies directed by Scorsese are Taxi Driver and the criminally underrated The King of Comedy. As a matter of fact, Gangs of New York is Scorsese's best film yet in my humble opinion. Admittedly dissecting the films looking for flaws is my thing but I will make exception to Gangs of New York because it packs an emotional and visceral wallop courtesy of the universally perfect production design, costuming, cinematography, music and sound effects. I won't comment on Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz's acting, as they served the story adequately, but Daniel Day Lewis' performance as Bill the Butcher truly stands out as one of the most realistic and complex villains ever depicted in the history of film. Nothing will beat Daniel's tour de force role as a ruthlessly evil and racist anti-immigrant leader for years to come because Daniel literally gets into the character without the usual over-the-top sneering, sniveling, cackling and common wicked expressions that stereotypical movie bad guys have. I have read Herbert Asbury's book and the film have met and even exceeded my expectation. I could go on writing about the film adaption of Gangs of New York, but I simply don't have the time nor the mental effort to write a lengthy review dissecting the film. Scorsese's vision would be a fully realized masterpiece with little or no discernable flaws if he had been given the final cut option from Miramax under Harvey Weinstein, but I won't argue that the theatrical cut of Gangs of New York is his director's cut - there won't be an extended film at all and I respect Scorsese's decision after going through the torturous editing process and meeting the deadline.Martin Scorsese, Daniel Day Lewis, the screenwriters and the production crew will most certainly earn their just acclaim come Oscar award time after having Scorsese left humiliated one too many times in losing streak.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-92

ur0089164

title: A masterpiece of semi-fictional history review: It saddens me that some younger audience members who went to see Gangs of New York have short attention span - constantly fiddling, twentysomething couples making out and getting up in the middle of the movie for restrooms and refreshments. This movie, despite starring Leonardo DiCaprio, is NOT similar to Titanic, another semi-historical fiction film. Both movies are different and unique. Scorsese's vision is far more terrifyingly realistic and violent than Cameron's vision of historical tragedy and doomed romance.That said, Gangs of New York does have its share of flaws - just like Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line which is one of my favorite films - but frankly who cares about what the majority of film critics have to complain that this film is the best of the best in Scorsese's career on par with good but overrated films Raging Bull and Goodfellas? For the record, my favorite movies directed by Scorsese are Taxi Driver and the criminally underrated The King of Comedy. As a matter of fact, Gangs of New York is Scorsese's best film yet in my humble opinion. Admittedly dissecting the films looking for flaws is my thing but I will make exception to Gangs of New York because it packs an emotional and visceral wallop courtesy of the universally perfect production design, costuming, cinematography, music and sound effects. I won't comment on Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz's acting, as they served the story adequately, but Daniel Day Lewis' performance as Bill the Butcher truly stands out as one of the most realistic and complex villains ever depicted in the history of film. Nothing will beat Daniel's tour de force role as a ruthlessly evil and racist anti-immigrant leader for years to come because Daniel literally gets into the character without the usual over-the-top sneering, sniveling, cackling and common wicked expressions that stereotypical movie bad guys have. I have read Herbert Asbury's book and the film have met and even exceeded my expectation. I could go on writing about the film adaption of Gangs of New York, but I simply don't have the time nor the mental effort to write a lengthy review dissecting the film. Scorsese's vision would be a fully realized masterpiece with little or no discernable flaws if he had been given the final cut option from Miramax under Harvey Weinstein, but I won't argue that the theatrical cut of Gangs of New York is his director's cut - there won't be an extended film at all and I respect Scorsese's decision after going through the torturous editing process and meeting the deadline.Martin Scorsese, Daniel Day Lewis, the screenwriters and the production crew will most certainly earn their just acclaim come Oscar award time after having Scorsese left humiliated one too many times in losing streak.

Day Lewis on top form in good period drama

tt0217505

Leonardo Di Caprio (Titanic) stars as Amsterdam Vallon, a young man coming back to New York to find his father's killer, William Cuttings and gain retribution.Nominated for 10 Oscars, Martin Scorsese's period drama brings a tale of vengeance, loyalty and honour to vibrant light with a dramatic tale involving stunning performances, effects, direction and cinematography.Di Caprio performs well as Vallon, a quiet but hurting inside man who wants vengeance for his father. It is not the best performance of his career but Di Caprio depicts the character well and comes out of his hell brilliantly towards the end of the story.The Titanic star is outshone by Daniel Day-Lewis (My Left Foot: The story of Christy Brown) who plays Bill the Butcher. Oscar nominated for his performance, Lewis is the most sophisticated actor in this film. His anger, sophistication and ease make the Butcher the most enjoyable character to watch.Diaz (Charlie's angels) gives the best performance of her career as thief Jenny and her on screen performance alongside Di Caprio is good, despite the dialogue and situation a bit of a cliché.The plot is good and consistent, revolving around strong issues such as religion, honour, friendship and family. Vallon and Cutting both had strong passionate fathers and this ideology is good to drive the characters on. Though the dialogue can sometimes lack, most is sharp and energetic, revealing the passion of the time.The costume design is excellent, depicting the time brilliantly, as does the cinematography. The settings, direction and everything about this film is brilliant, except for the plot which could have just been a bit sharper and not run on a few clichés but a great watch with Daniel Day-Lewis in top form.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1131

ur11597946

title: Day Lewis on top form in good period drama review: Leonardo Di Caprio (Titanic) stars as Amsterdam Vallon, a young man coming back to New York to find his father's killer, William Cuttings and gain retribution.Nominated for 10 Oscars, Martin Scorsese's period drama brings a tale of vengeance, loyalty and honour to vibrant light with a dramatic tale involving stunning performances, effects, direction and cinematography.Di Caprio performs well as Vallon, a quiet but hurting inside man who wants vengeance for his father. It is not the best performance of his career but Di Caprio depicts the character well and comes out of his hell brilliantly towards the end of the story.The Titanic star is outshone by Daniel Day-Lewis (My Left Foot: The story of Christy Brown) who plays Bill the Butcher. Oscar nominated for his performance, Lewis is the most sophisticated actor in this film. His anger, sophistication and ease make the Butcher the most enjoyable character to watch.Diaz (Charlie's angels) gives the best performance of her career as thief Jenny and her on screen performance alongside Di Caprio is good, despite the dialogue and situation a bit of a cliché.The plot is good and consistent, revolving around strong issues such as religion, honour, friendship and family. Vallon and Cutting both had strong passionate fathers and this ideology is good to drive the characters on. Though the dialogue can sometimes lack, most is sharp and energetic, revealing the passion of the time.The costume design is excellent, depicting the time brilliantly, as does the cinematography. The settings, direction and everything about this film is brilliant, except for the plot which could have just been a bit sharper and not run on a few clichés but a great watch with Daniel Day-Lewis in top form.

Good But Not Scorsese Good.

tt0217505

It's an extremely well done film, but not one of Scorsese's best. His first feature in seven years since "Casino" (1995) is a return to top form, however at 2 hours 40 minutes I find that the movie tends to drag on considerably.Actually this film is the one where I started really enjoying Leonardo DiCaprio as a performer. Sure I liked him enough in "The Beach" (2000), but here is where I start to believe his leading man capabilities. I also enjoy Cameron Diaz's performance though I never thought too much of her character, and as much as Daniel Day Lewis is a superb actor I think his performance is sometimes way over the top than memorable.For as silly as this film can get, it's very well lit and the organisation and scope for some of these fights is undeniably impressive. The last 30 minutes is a spectacle but the ending never got to me, regardless how poignantly it was presented.Final Verdict: It may not be the greatest entry in Scorsese's unbelievable filmography, but this is still worth watching overall. 7/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1258

ur48102834

title: Good But Not Scorsese Good. review: It's an extremely well done film, but not one of Scorsese's best. His first feature in seven years since "Casino" (1995) is a return to top form, however at 2 hours 40 minutes I find that the movie tends to drag on considerably.Actually this film is the one where I started really enjoying Leonardo DiCaprio as a performer. Sure I liked him enough in "The Beach" (2000), but here is where I start to believe his leading man capabilities. I also enjoy Cameron Diaz's performance though I never thought too much of her character, and as much as Daniel Day Lewis is a superb actor I think his performance is sometimes way over the top than memorable.For as silly as this film can get, it's very well lit and the organisation and scope for some of these fights is undeniably impressive. The last 30 minutes is a spectacle but the ending never got to me, regardless how poignantly it was presented.Final Verdict: It may not be the greatest entry in Scorsese's unbelievable filmography, but this is still worth watching overall. 7/10.

History class never had been so much cool!

tt0217505

Gangs of New York, is unlike anything I've ever seen. It is a masterpiece of Scorsece. but can be a show of pure entertainment, with excellent performances. It is a film that is half history, half action, half drama, half crime. The story, as the title says, is about the first gang that existed in New York City before and during the American Civil War, which were mostly composed of Irish, Chinese, German, etc ... The main character is Amsterdam Vallon, the son of one of the most powerful leaders of the gangs of New York (the dead-rabbits), who was killed during a clash against another gang, a gang American (The Patriots), he returns to New York years later seeking revenge against Bill the Butcher, the leader of the Patriots who killed his father. Of course you already think he's back, joins the group from his father, there is a confrontation and a nice happy ending ... Well, as I said before, it's all very different from what I've seen. The film goes deeper than the main story itself, explores the city of new york "before it becomes a city." The whole movie has as stage, the neighborhood of five points (what is now Paradise Square). Hence the film covers much of the history of the city, New York before and during the civil war was controlled by gangs while politicians were concerned only with the votes of election, with the help some gangs. The gang that controls the five points controlled the entire city (mainly because the five points gave access to all city streets). The story serves as a wick for the fire of the film. The film even manages to be epic at this point, as can also be disturbing in some parts, while fun to watch, no one notices the length of time it will fly. One point that I should mention is the soundtrack that is very diverse, some are even disturbing, others funny, others extremely epic. The soundtrack of the film's ending is a mixture of all that we hear the during movie. The film is very well made and designed, the cast is fantastic, Daniel Day Lewis dominates with one of his best performances, and of course we have Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz as always excellent. An epic film that I found while a good and entertaining history lesson at the same time we had fun and thrill. Congratulations Martin Scorsece!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1230

ur37892465

title: History class never had been so much cool! review: Gangs of New York, is unlike anything I've ever seen. It is a masterpiece of Scorsece. but can be a show of pure entertainment, with excellent performances. It is a film that is half history, half action, half drama, half crime. The story, as the title says, is about the first gang that existed in New York City before and during the American Civil War, which were mostly composed of Irish, Chinese, German, etc ... The main character is Amsterdam Vallon, the son of one of the most powerful leaders of the gangs of New York (the dead-rabbits), who was killed during a clash against another gang, a gang American (The Patriots), he returns to New York years later seeking revenge against Bill the Butcher, the leader of the Patriots who killed his father. Of course you already think he's back, joins the group from his father, there is a confrontation and a nice happy ending ... Well, as I said before, it's all very different from what I've seen. The film goes deeper than the main story itself, explores the city of new york "before it becomes a city." The whole movie has as stage, the neighborhood of five points (what is now Paradise Square). Hence the film covers much of the history of the city, New York before and during the civil war was controlled by gangs while politicians were concerned only with the votes of election, with the help some gangs. The gang that controls the five points controlled the entire city (mainly because the five points gave access to all city streets). The story serves as a wick for the fire of the film. The film even manages to be epic at this point, as can also be disturbing in some parts, while fun to watch, no one notices the length of time it will fly. One point that I should mention is the soundtrack that is very diverse, some are even disturbing, others funny, others extremely epic. The soundtrack of the film's ending is a mixture of all that we hear the during movie. The film is very well made and designed, the cast is fantastic, Daniel Day Lewis dominates with one of his best performances, and of course we have Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz as always excellent. An epic film that I found while a good and entertaining history lesson at the same time we had fun and thrill. Congratulations Martin Scorsece!

Wretched Refuse, Teeming Shores

tt0217505

There's no need to announce with titles that you're seeing a Scorsese film, any more than, say Kubrick, DePalma, or Adrian Lyne. His trademark is the visual depiction of violent, physical conflict as something palatable.With "Taxi Driver", what mattered was tone...with "Raging Bull", a man who cannot square himself with the world's circle...with "Casino", the notion of the surveillance eye.Here, we get mostly Scorsese-paint-by-numbers: the delivery of a vicarious thrill from seeing his characters chop each other up. Oh, the detail is splendid. The problem is, we've seen this before; less competently ('Titanic') or fairly competently ('Master and Commander'); the 'look how true this is to the period details' showing off that adorns the simple inevitability of the central story. Oddly, the more that Scorsese's scenes teem with extras and all their minutiae, the more fake and distant this seems.And the more movies in this vein that I see, the more that 'Barry Lyndon' stands alone as the supreme costume drama - where the cinematic vision comes first, and the story is incidental.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1068

ur8708196

title: Wretched Refuse, Teeming Shores review: There's no need to announce with titles that you're seeing a Scorsese film, any more than, say Kubrick, DePalma, or Adrian Lyne. His trademark is the visual depiction of violent, physical conflict as something palatable.With "Taxi Driver", what mattered was tone...with "Raging Bull", a man who cannot square himself with the world's circle...with "Casino", the notion of the surveillance eye.Here, we get mostly Scorsese-paint-by-numbers: the delivery of a vicarious thrill from seeing his characters chop each other up. Oh, the detail is splendid. The problem is, we've seen this before; less competently ('Titanic') or fairly competently ('Master and Commander'); the 'look how true this is to the period details' showing off that adorns the simple inevitability of the central story. Oddly, the more that Scorsese's scenes teem with extras and all their minutiae, the more fake and distant this seems.And the more movies in this vein that I see, the more that 'Barry Lyndon' stands alone as the supreme costume drama - where the cinematic vision comes first, and the story is incidental.

Watch this for Daniel Day-Lewis

tt0217505

There are obviously problems with this movie. The story is crappy, Diaz is superfluous and Leo is barely passable. And wow, is it long. They could have cut out huge portions of the thing and it would have been tighter and much more interesting.For the people who say that the behavior of the mobs is unrealistic: Read a history book. The portrayal of people at their worst is refreshingly frank, and while Scorsese is pro-poor, he thankfully isn't deluded enough to BS this topic. The history of that period, of urban gang life and unrest, really stands out as the second most interesting part of the film to me, and it was really disappointing that Scorsese had to tack on a dull revenge/romance plot to justify spending the money to bring the period to life. I definitely think Scorsese should have found a better way, story-wise, to integrate the characters into the history. The cinematography is very good, same as the glimpse into the culture. If the story had been fresh or unpredictable or... mehAnyway, the MOST interesting part of this thing is Daniel Day-Lewis, playing a character with a charisma all his own. You can't look away when he's on screen. This is, for some people, a form of overacting, but not me. I thought Lewis' performance was fantastic, nearly as good as his role in There Will Be Blood, and I'm definitely looking forward to his portrayal of Lincoln.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1213

ur30855550

title: Watch this for Daniel Day-Lewis review: There are obviously problems with this movie. The story is crappy, Diaz is superfluous and Leo is barely passable. And wow, is it long. They could have cut out huge portions of the thing and it would have been tighter and much more interesting.For the people who say that the behavior of the mobs is unrealistic: Read a history book. The portrayal of people at their worst is refreshingly frank, and while Scorsese is pro-poor, he thankfully isn't deluded enough to BS this topic. The history of that period, of urban gang life and unrest, really stands out as the second most interesting part of the film to me, and it was really disappointing that Scorsese had to tack on a dull revenge/romance plot to justify spending the money to bring the period to life. I definitely think Scorsese should have found a better way, story-wise, to integrate the characters into the history. The cinematography is very good, same as the glimpse into the culture. If the story had been fresh or unpredictable or... mehAnyway, the MOST interesting part of this thing is Daniel Day-Lewis, playing a character with a charisma all his own. You can't look away when he's on screen. This is, for some people, a form of overacting, but not me. I thought Lewis' performance was fantastic, nearly as good as his role in There Will Be Blood, and I'm definitely looking forward to his portrayal of Lincoln.

Another brutal masterpiece from the maestro

tt0217505

Gangs Of New York (2002)Top 5 - 2002Leaving some breathless and stunned and others unsure,Martin Scorsese's last gangster epic of the 90s was Casino (1996). In my opinion a superb film. 6 years later Scorsese gathers his cinematic mastery to create another powerful and brutal period gangster drama about New York (of course).Gangs Of New York is a bloodthirsty film about the struggling, lawless period that was endured while America was being 'born'. Immigrants were registering in Ellis Island and thereafter were unleashed to prosper (or otherwise) in the land of the free.Scorsese shows us how the already established 'Americans' fiercely despised the Irish settlers. The film's opening scene is brutal, obscene. A bloody battle led by Liam Neeson for the Irish and a sociopath, prejudiced Daniel Day Lewis (who is astonishing) as Bill The Butcher wanting to clear the scum off of the streets of New York; his streets, his corners.This is a Martin Scorsese film so I don't need to tell you that a) it is violent and b) it is very good. Though it may not apply to everyone, Gangs is a beautifully crafted, directed and acted masterwork from one of the finest and purest directors of the past three decades.Watch Leonardo Di Caprio's risky journey as he befriends Bill The Butcher in a mission to ultimately avenge his father's death at the Five Points battle."A stunning period gangster epic" 8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1107

ur8564485

title: Another brutal masterpiece from the maestro review: Gangs Of New York (2002)Top 5 - 2002Leaving some breathless and stunned and others unsure,Martin Scorsese's last gangster epic of the 90s was Casino (1996). In my opinion a superb film. 6 years later Scorsese gathers his cinematic mastery to create another powerful and brutal period gangster drama about New York (of course).Gangs Of New York is a bloodthirsty film about the struggling, lawless period that was endured while America was being 'born'. Immigrants were registering in Ellis Island and thereafter were unleashed to prosper (or otherwise) in the land of the free.Scorsese shows us how the already established 'Americans' fiercely despised the Irish settlers. The film's opening scene is brutal, obscene. A bloody battle led by Liam Neeson for the Irish and a sociopath, prejudiced Daniel Day Lewis (who is astonishing) as Bill The Butcher wanting to clear the scum off of the streets of New York; his streets, his corners.This is a Martin Scorsese film so I don't need to tell you that a) it is violent and b) it is very good. Though it may not apply to everyone, Gangs is a beautifully crafted, directed and acted masterwork from one of the finest and purest directors of the past three decades.Watch Leonardo Di Caprio's risky journey as he befriends Bill The Butcher in a mission to ultimately avenge his father's death at the Five Points battle."A stunning period gangster epic" 8/10

Should have won the Oscar here...

tt0217505

Many dub Martin Scorsese is considered a great Director but I've never really seen the magic or creative side of him; after watching Departed I was angered at how messy and rushed Departed was, and then I watched Gangs of New York. Gangs of New York is very stylish and lavish; it tells the tale of New York back in 1863; Amsterdam arrives to the Five Points to avenge the death of his father.Daniel Day Lewis shines as Bill the Butcher; he brings in the sheer menace and nastiness that lies within the character, while Dicaprio pulls off the vengeful son role with enough grit, Cameron Diaz is also surprisingly captivating; the rest of the cast provide a satisfactory performance.The setting of New York is bright and colourful and shines with colours which can blind the audience with their radiance, and then you see the more disturbing images the barbarians that live within the houses and buildings...The Only Martin Scorsese Film worth watching...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1138

ur8131454

title: Should have won the Oscar here... review: Many dub Martin Scorsese is considered a great Director but I've never really seen the magic or creative side of him; after watching Departed I was angered at how messy and rushed Departed was, and then I watched Gangs of New York. Gangs of New York is very stylish and lavish; it tells the tale of New York back in 1863; Amsterdam arrives to the Five Points to avenge the death of his father.Daniel Day Lewis shines as Bill the Butcher; he brings in the sheer menace and nastiness that lies within the character, while Dicaprio pulls off the vengeful son role with enough grit, Cameron Diaz is also surprisingly captivating; the rest of the cast provide a satisfactory performance.The setting of New York is bright and colourful and shines with colours which can blind the audience with their radiance, and then you see the more disturbing images the barbarians that live within the houses and buildings...The Only Martin Scorsese Film worth watching...

waste of talent

tt0217505

I am bit baffled by some of the comments and reviews about this film. It is almost as if I saw another version of the film or a completely different movie. Every one of the actors in this film wandered around, clueless, never showing any range whatsoever, and lost in a gargantuan production with no heart, sense of logic, or a semblance of a storyline. It is disappointing because the people involved have been wonderful in previous efforts. Why is it so hard to admit that even geniuses like Scorcese make mistakes? This is not within miles of his previous masterpieces. "Gangs" is bloated, boring, baffling, beautiful in a distant, garish, and strange way. It is unbelievable that with so many people involved no one had the guts to say "this is not working". Please open your eyes, be honest, and admit that sometimes films just don't work. Don't surrender yourself to a self-induced mirage caused by the fear to be perceived as clueless. Honestly, I was disappointed, and I just hope next time the master will get it right.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-278

ur2115026

title: waste of talent review: I am bit baffled by some of the comments and reviews about this film. It is almost as if I saw another version of the film or a completely different movie. Every one of the actors in this film wandered around, clueless, never showing any range whatsoever, and lost in a gargantuan production with no heart, sense of logic, or a semblance of a storyline. It is disappointing because the people involved have been wonderful in previous efforts. Why is it so hard to admit that even geniuses like Scorcese make mistakes? This is not within miles of his previous masterpieces. "Gangs" is bloated, boring, baffling, beautiful in a distant, garish, and strange way. It is unbelievable that with so many people involved no one had the guts to say "this is not working". Please open your eyes, be honest, and admit that sometimes films just don't work. Don't surrender yourself to a self-induced mirage caused by the fear to be perceived as clueless. Honestly, I was disappointed, and I just hope next time the master will get it right.

Day-Lewis was the master "gang" leader in this one!

tt0217505

Director Martin Scorcese's assiduous film dramatizations of New York continue with the 19th century epic "Gangs of New York". Leonardo Dicaprio stars as Amsterdam, an Irish immigrant who returns to New York to take vengeance on his father's murderer- Bill the Butcher. Daniel Day-Lewis slices up an electrifying performance as Bill the Butcher. This is a type of role that is "prime meat" for an Oscar nomination, so expect Day-Lewis to deservedly receive a nod when nominations are announced. However, Dicaprio was no "King of New York" in his stale performance. Cameron Diaz, who plays the pick-pocket romantic interest, was not able to steal our hearts with her lackadaisical acting attempt. Diaz has definitely had "better diaz" as an actress. The voluptuous "big apples" of "Gangs of New York" was the detailed direction of Scorcese, the magnificent replication art direction, and the subjective historical cinematography. Also, let's not forget Day-Lewis' outstanding "meaty" performance. Even though it was not the classic that I expected, "Gangs of New York" is overpowering enough for you to take your gang to initiate yourselves in the "Gangs of New York". **** Good

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-84

ur0489763

title: Day-Lewis was the master "gang" leader in this one! review: Director Martin Scorcese's assiduous film dramatizations of New York continue with the 19th century epic "Gangs of New York". Leonardo Dicaprio stars as Amsterdam, an Irish immigrant who returns to New York to take vengeance on his father's murderer- Bill the Butcher. Daniel Day-Lewis slices up an electrifying performance as Bill the Butcher. This is a type of role that is "prime meat" for an Oscar nomination, so expect Day-Lewis to deservedly receive a nod when nominations are announced. However, Dicaprio was no "King of New York" in his stale performance. Cameron Diaz, who plays the pick-pocket romantic interest, was not able to steal our hearts with her lackadaisical acting attempt. Diaz has definitely had "better diaz" as an actress. The voluptuous "big apples" of "Gangs of New York" was the detailed direction of Scorcese, the magnificent replication art direction, and the subjective historical cinematography. Also, let's not forget Day-Lewis' outstanding "meaty" performance. Even though it was not the classic that I expected, "Gangs of New York" is overpowering enough for you to take your gang to initiate yourselves in the "Gangs of New York". **** Good

I don't get it. Maybe I saw a different movie than the rest.

tt0217505

Many people are praising this movie beyond words.Maybe I went into the wrong theater.I went in expecting to see an epic on the creation of New York City, and the shape it took after hordes of immigrants made it the cosmopolitan place it is now.What I got instead was 2 straight hours of diCaprio wooing Cameron Diaz, and some 40 minutes of actual politics and gang wars.Don't get me wrong - I HATED this movie. Hated every second of it. Hated Martin Scorsese for having succumbed to "Cameron's Syndrome" (which is, not being able to stop showing diCaprio as a sex symbol instead of concentrating in actually telling a story). It is "Titanic" meets New York in the worst of ways. I hate diCaprio, because after "What's eating Gilbert Grape" he hasn't been able to make one decent movie, while turning every single film he has been in into a tribute to his personna.I now can only wish some other director will actually try and tackle this subject with a shred more of dignity, all while telling a story that actually makes some sense. "Gangs of New York" is a terrible effort - a movie that should and could have been the best movie of the year. Instead, it is a tribute to diCaprio with a couple minutes dedicated to the actual story of the Gangs of New York. Pathetic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-240

ur0508954

title: I don't get it. Maybe I saw a different movie than the rest. review: Many people are praising this movie beyond words.Maybe I went into the wrong theater.I went in expecting to see an epic on the creation of New York City, and the shape it took after hordes of immigrants made it the cosmopolitan place it is now.What I got instead was 2 straight hours of diCaprio wooing Cameron Diaz, and some 40 minutes of actual politics and gang wars.Don't get me wrong - I HATED this movie. Hated every second of it. Hated Martin Scorsese for having succumbed to "Cameron's Syndrome" (which is, not being able to stop showing diCaprio as a sex symbol instead of concentrating in actually telling a story). It is "Titanic" meets New York in the worst of ways. I hate diCaprio, because after "What's eating Gilbert Grape" he hasn't been able to make one decent movie, while turning every single film he has been in into a tribute to his personna.I now can only wish some other director will actually try and tackle this subject with a shred more of dignity, all while telling a story that actually makes some sense. "Gangs of New York" is a terrible effort - a movie that should and could have been the best movie of the year. Instead, it is a tribute to diCaprio with a couple minutes dedicated to the actual story of the Gangs of New York. Pathetic.

A Tremendous Achievement

tt0217505

I was eleven when this film came out. Of course, I couldn't see it, but I still managed to book tickets for my dad to go, as a late birthday present. When I asked him what he thought, he said that it was brilliant. Since then, I have been incredibly eager to see it.I finally saw it a year ago, and was amazed. Gangs of New York is a film with a grand sense of scale and spectacle, the incredibly detailed sets and props all portraying a corrupted and immoral world of gangs, riots, racism and other large issues of the time.In fact, Gangs of New York sometimes tries to handle a bit too much, with the many issues all battling for decent screen time, along with the film's revenge-driven main plot. It is not necessarily a bad point about the film, but it would have been nice if Scorsese had tackled fewer sub plots. Sometimes, you can be a bit too epic. Also, as a result of this, some characters don't feel as developed as they should be (such as Johnny, a friend of one of the lead characters who eventually turns into a traitor).However, these are the only flaws that I can see throughout Gangs of New York. Eager to give the New York setting as much detail as humanly possible, the production crew has created something truly memorable. Every street feels authentic, every costume feels infected by the time in which the film is set and most of the characters feel individual.Of course, when it comes to the authenticity of the characters, the praise should largely go to the actors portraying them. The supporting cast is brilliant, with actors such as Liam Neeson, Brendan Gleeson and Jim Broadbent delivering great work in sometimes truncated roles. Broadbent particularly deserves applause for his terrifically entertaining performance as a corrupt politician who is only interested in one thing; winning.As for the leads, they are also fine. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers an emotionally credible performance as a man seeking revenge for the death of his father (as depicted in the film's opening and gruesomely stunning battle sequence) whilst Cameron Diaz is also mature enough to convince the audience of her character's plight. However, all of the other actors cower under the rip-roaring force of one Daniel Day-Lewis.Day-Lewis fully captures the audience's attention from the opening onwards, eliciting brute force along with an unstoppable love for America. He is one of those murderers who the audience can't help but be drawn to, and performs with such passion that his character is utterly believable. His portrayal quivers with power, most notably in the scene where he describes the power of fear in a bedside discussion with DiCaprio's Amsterdam. It is an exceptionally grand performance, and will certainly not be forgotten by myself for a long time.Steven Zaillian's script is expertly written, never shying away from the nasty side of the story. People are killed with cleavers without their murderer ever even flinching. A policeman is strangled and strung up for everyone to see his corpse. A man is forced to kill his friend. This isn't a very nice story, and Zaillian complements the fact with nasty yet human dialogue, which sounds like it has been spewed from the depths of the character's condemned soul. He also provides some fine pieces of humour, which aren't out of place in the film's bloody plot, yet provide some relief from the almost never-ending slaughter.Conducting all of the blood and guts is Scorsese. As I said before, he sometimes tries to add too many subplots into the mix, but overall, his direction is superb. He crafts the film with great skill and intelligence, rewarding the more expectant viewers instead of mocking them. Also, even though some of the subplots aren't really handled successfully, there are moments of pure perfection when Scorsese manages to mix in the main story with other events.As Amsterdam and Bill the Butcher (Day-Lewis) march away after a confrontation with Boss Tweed (Jim Broadbent), the camera pans away to a group of immigrants who have just landed in New York. They are immediately being sent to fight in the Civil War, and are boarding a ship sailing for the battlefield. As they are boarding the ship, coffins containing dead soldiers are being shipped over their heads into the harbour. This is an exceptional shot, one which shows the indifference of the Americans in the face of the suffering which has been endured by the immigrants. These people sail to America in search of a better life, and in return, they get sent to die.Gangs of New York may be flawed, but it doesn't let its bad points drag it down. Scorsese keeps everything moving nicely, right up to the bloody depiction of the Draft Riots. Here, Scorsese can be seen at his best, releasing pure, bloodthirsty pandemonium as people storm the streets murdering and pillaging, whilst always keeping his eyes on the central characters and their plight. Another excellent moment takes place in this period of the film. When the police close in on the rioters, the rioters become trapped. They are ordered to break up, but they don't. There is one second of intense silence, then the police open fire. The result is a violent and graphic bloodbath, with Howard Shore's tremendously passionate score pounding in the background. It is a truly gripping and poetic moment in the film, and is deeply moving.At the end of it all, Gangs may have its flaws, but they don't stop it from having a huge impact on its audience. It is moving, tragic, passionate and heroic, and is outstandingly presided over by Martin Scorsese and Daniel Day-Lewis. It was a tremendously challenging film to make, but it has been made with a huge amount of creativity, brains and heart.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1120

ur11541392

title: A Tremendous Achievement review: I was eleven when this film came out. Of course, I couldn't see it, but I still managed to book tickets for my dad to go, as a late birthday present. When I asked him what he thought, he said that it was brilliant. Since then, I have been incredibly eager to see it.I finally saw it a year ago, and was amazed. Gangs of New York is a film with a grand sense of scale and spectacle, the incredibly detailed sets and props all portraying a corrupted and immoral world of gangs, riots, racism and other large issues of the time.In fact, Gangs of New York sometimes tries to handle a bit too much, with the many issues all battling for decent screen time, along with the film's revenge-driven main plot. It is not necessarily a bad point about the film, but it would have been nice if Scorsese had tackled fewer sub plots. Sometimes, you can be a bit too epic. Also, as a result of this, some characters don't feel as developed as they should be (such as Johnny, a friend of one of the lead characters who eventually turns into a traitor).However, these are the only flaws that I can see throughout Gangs of New York. Eager to give the New York setting as much detail as humanly possible, the production crew has created something truly memorable. Every street feels authentic, every costume feels infected by the time in which the film is set and most of the characters feel individual.Of course, when it comes to the authenticity of the characters, the praise should largely go to the actors portraying them. The supporting cast is brilliant, with actors such as Liam Neeson, Brendan Gleeson and Jim Broadbent delivering great work in sometimes truncated roles. Broadbent particularly deserves applause for his terrifically entertaining performance as a corrupt politician who is only interested in one thing; winning.As for the leads, they are also fine. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers an emotionally credible performance as a man seeking revenge for the death of his father (as depicted in the film's opening and gruesomely stunning battle sequence) whilst Cameron Diaz is also mature enough to convince the audience of her character's plight. However, all of the other actors cower under the rip-roaring force of one Daniel Day-Lewis.Day-Lewis fully captures the audience's attention from the opening onwards, eliciting brute force along with an unstoppable love for America. He is one of those murderers who the audience can't help but be drawn to, and performs with such passion that his character is utterly believable. His portrayal quivers with power, most notably in the scene where he describes the power of fear in a bedside discussion with DiCaprio's Amsterdam. It is an exceptionally grand performance, and will certainly not be forgotten by myself for a long time.Steven Zaillian's script is expertly written, never shying away from the nasty side of the story. People are killed with cleavers without their murderer ever even flinching. A policeman is strangled and strung up for everyone to see his corpse. A man is forced to kill his friend. This isn't a very nice story, and Zaillian complements the fact with nasty yet human dialogue, which sounds like it has been spewed from the depths of the character's condemned soul. He also provides some fine pieces of humour, which aren't out of place in the film's bloody plot, yet provide some relief from the almost never-ending slaughter.Conducting all of the blood and guts is Scorsese. As I said before, he sometimes tries to add too many subplots into the mix, but overall, his direction is superb. He crafts the film with great skill and intelligence, rewarding the more expectant viewers instead of mocking them. Also, even though some of the subplots aren't really handled successfully, there are moments of pure perfection when Scorsese manages to mix in the main story with other events.As Amsterdam and Bill the Butcher (Day-Lewis) march away after a confrontation with Boss Tweed (Jim Broadbent), the camera pans away to a group of immigrants who have just landed in New York. They are immediately being sent to fight in the Civil War, and are boarding a ship sailing for the battlefield. As they are boarding the ship, coffins containing dead soldiers are being shipped over their heads into the harbour. This is an exceptional shot, one which shows the indifference of the Americans in the face of the suffering which has been endured by the immigrants. These people sail to America in search of a better life, and in return, they get sent to die.Gangs of New York may be flawed, but it doesn't let its bad points drag it down. Scorsese keeps everything moving nicely, right up to the bloody depiction of the Draft Riots. Here, Scorsese can be seen at his best, releasing pure, bloodthirsty pandemonium as people storm the streets murdering and pillaging, whilst always keeping his eyes on the central characters and their plight. Another excellent moment takes place in this period of the film. When the police close in on the rioters, the rioters become trapped. They are ordered to break up, but they don't. There is one second of intense silence, then the police open fire. The result is a violent and graphic bloodbath, with Howard Shore's tremendously passionate score pounding in the background. It is a truly gripping and poetic moment in the film, and is deeply moving.At the end of it all, Gangs may have its flaws, but they don't stop it from having a huge impact on its audience. It is moving, tragic, passionate and heroic, and is outstandingly presided over by Martin Scorsese and Daniel Day-Lewis. It was a tremendously challenging film to make, but it has been made with a huge amount of creativity, brains and heart.

Long, but worth it.

tt0217505

I am not American nor do I know the history of New York, but if this film is anything to go by, I think that the New York of that time period would not have been a very pleasant place to live. This film is very graphic and rather disturbing. But it is worth sitting through for the acting.A lot of people have said that Daniel Day-Lewis should have won the best actor Oscar... and I won't say anything different. He was just phenomenal. Pure genius. He totally transformed himself into Bill the Butcher and not for one second could you see any part of Daniel the Actor. The expressions, the body-language, the dialogue delivery... absolutely brilliant. It's a shame that he hasn't done a lot more films but maybe that's where the "quality over quantity" factor comes in. He could easily be doing lots of movies, but I guess his greatness lies in the fact that he can come out every few years with a performance like his life depended on it and then disappear. One thing's for sure, he never loses his charm. One of the greatest of all time, definitely. I've never been a big fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, but I do believe that he is an exceptional actor. "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?", "Catch Me If You Can" and now this one... all solid, intense performances. He really got into character and did a great job despite the accent slip-ups.The less said about Cameron Diaz, the better. I will agree with everyone who has said that she was less annoying in this movie than usual. Decent performance, but nothing noteworthy.The rest of the supporting cast is great. Jim Broadbent, Brendan Gleeson, John C. Reily... all fine actors. And then of course, Liam Neeson. His role was short, but whatever he does is always excellent.My rating: 8/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-929

ur1698056

title: Long, but worth it. review: I am not American nor do I know the history of New York, but if this film is anything to go by, I think that the New York of that time period would not have been a very pleasant place to live. This film is very graphic and rather disturbing. But it is worth sitting through for the acting.A lot of people have said that Daniel Day-Lewis should have won the best actor Oscar... and I won't say anything different. He was just phenomenal. Pure genius. He totally transformed himself into Bill the Butcher and not for one second could you see any part of Daniel the Actor. The expressions, the body-language, the dialogue delivery... absolutely brilliant. It's a shame that he hasn't done a lot more films but maybe that's where the "quality over quantity" factor comes in. He could easily be doing lots of movies, but I guess his greatness lies in the fact that he can come out every few years with a performance like his life depended on it and then disappear. One thing's for sure, he never loses his charm. One of the greatest of all time, definitely. I've never been a big fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, but I do believe that he is an exceptional actor. "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?", "Catch Me If You Can" and now this one... all solid, intense performances. He really got into character and did a great job despite the accent slip-ups.The less said about Cameron Diaz, the better. I will agree with everyone who has said that she was less annoying in this movie than usual. Decent performance, but nothing noteworthy.The rest of the supporting cast is great. Jim Broadbent, Brendan Gleeson, John C. Reily... all fine actors. And then of course, Liam Neeson. His role was short, but whatever he does is always excellent.My rating: 8/10.

One of my favorite Scorsese films.Daniel Day Lewis gives it momentum.

tt0217505

It had been years since mob film director had done a film. The film he came back for,Gangs of New York, was nominated for 10 Oscars including best film and best supporting actor.It won 0.And it got mixed reviews with critics.My favorite Scorsese picture,Casino,was his most underrated.Then Gangs of New York would come after that. Gangs of New York,like Casino,is very,very entertaining and interesting. I loved this movie. It's pretty awesome. It's very original,and it's not really like anything Scorsese has done before.This is a great film.Not my favorite of that year,not my favorite Scorsese film(though one of them),but a great movie.There is a lot to admire.Even the scenery and the music played. But for me:what really made this movie what it was?For me,the best thing about Gangs of New York is the performance by the amazing Daniel Day-Lewis.Daniel Day Lewis is really terrific in anything he's in. To me he gives one of his best performances here.Though my favorite performance from him is Daniel Plainview,his work as the villainous Bill "The Butcher" is astonishing.Leonardo DiCaprio starts off the DiCaprio/Scorsese lucky streak as Amsterdam Vallon,a young man who has been incarcerated for years. Amsterdam arrives in New York to avenge the death of his father(Liam Neeson)who was slaughtered in battle by Bill "The Butcher"(Daniel Day-Lewis).When he first meets him,he doesn't murder him.He actually starts working for him and they share a bond together. Along the way,he meets people from his past and a woman who steals from men's pockets(played well by Cameron Diaz),who also has something in common with Bill.Gangs of New York feels like an eternity. It's very long. But it's awesome. I think it's Scorsese's most original film. Not his best but I think it's one of them. It's terrific. There is a lot to admire. But the thing that makes it so great is Daniel Day Lewis who is electrifying in every scene.Though he lost the Oscar to Chris Cooper for Adaptation,my favorite film of that year, Lewis is amazing. He gives both There will be blood(a better film)and Gangs of New York the credit they received.Gangs of New York:A+

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1176

ur22881716

title: One of my favorite Scorsese films.Daniel Day Lewis gives it momentum. review: It had been years since mob film director had done a film. The film he came back for,Gangs of New York, was nominated for 10 Oscars including best film and best supporting actor.It won 0.And it got mixed reviews with critics.My favorite Scorsese picture,Casino,was his most underrated.Then Gangs of New York would come after that. Gangs of New York,like Casino,is very,very entertaining and interesting. I loved this movie. It's pretty awesome. It's very original,and it's not really like anything Scorsese has done before.This is a great film.Not my favorite of that year,not my favorite Scorsese film(though one of them),but a great movie.There is a lot to admire.Even the scenery and the music played. But for me:what really made this movie what it was?For me,the best thing about Gangs of New York is the performance by the amazing Daniel Day-Lewis.Daniel Day Lewis is really terrific in anything he's in. To me he gives one of his best performances here.Though my favorite performance from him is Daniel Plainview,his work as the villainous Bill "The Butcher" is astonishing.Leonardo DiCaprio starts off the DiCaprio/Scorsese lucky streak as Amsterdam Vallon,a young man who has been incarcerated for years. Amsterdam arrives in New York to avenge the death of his father(Liam Neeson)who was slaughtered in battle by Bill "The Butcher"(Daniel Day-Lewis).When he first meets him,he doesn't murder him.He actually starts working for him and they share a bond together. Along the way,he meets people from his past and a woman who steals from men's pockets(played well by Cameron Diaz),who also has something in common with Bill.Gangs of New York feels like an eternity. It's very long. But it's awesome. I think it's Scorsese's most original film. Not his best but I think it's one of them. It's terrific. There is a lot to admire. But the thing that makes it so great is Daniel Day Lewis who is electrifying in every scene.Though he lost the Oscar to Chris Cooper for Adaptation,my favorite film of that year, Lewis is amazing. He gives both There will be blood(a better film)and Gangs of New York the credit they received.Gangs of New York:A+

Born in the streets

tt0217505

Gangs of New York takes a fascinating look at a largely forgotten slice of American history. As the film's tagline states, America was born in the streets. This is the tale of the 19th century Irish immigrants who came to New York City to build a new life for themselves and of the "Natives" who tormented them. Put "Natives" in quotation marks because they are not natives at all, their ancestors came over from Europe just as the Irish were doing now. But, led by the villainous Bill the Butcher, the Natives make life miserable for the poor Irish who are just trying to survive in New York's notorious Five Points slum. Bill the Butcher rules the Five Points with an iron fist, the Irish rally behind their own leader, Priest Vallon, to oppose him. The film opens with a battle in the streets, the Butcher's gang of Natives squaring off with the Priest's Dead Rabbits, his gang of Irishmen (and an Irish lady, the fearsome Hell-Cat Maggie). Carnage ensues, this is one of the most violent, blood-soaked scenes ever seen in any film. Brutal, raw violence, hand-to-hand combat which ends with Priest Vallon falling under the Butcher's knife. Young Amsterdam Vallon witnesses his father's death. He is sent off to the orphanage. He'll be back.16 years pass before Amsterdam returns to the Five Points. It is now 1862, the Civil War now rages and that war will come to touch the city. But the story the film follows is not of the grand scope of the great war but a smaller, more personal tale of Amsterdam's quest for vengeance. But it is not as easy as just turning up in the Five Points and stabbing Bill the Butcher while he sleeps. Bill is the king of the Five Points and you kill a king where everyone can watch him die. Amsterdam makes plans to kill the Butcher at the annual commemoration of the victory of the Natives over the Dead Rabbits. But that is months away. In the meantime Amsterdam falls under Bill's sway, rising to become the right-hand man of the unwitting Butcher who does not know the young man's true identity. Eventually the time will come when Amsterdam must make his move. And then things will explode.While the tale that Martin Scorsese tells here is a highly fictionalized account of what went on in the Five Points it is still a very worthy look at that unique time and place. The main storyline here may seem to be just a simple revenge story but there is so much else swirling around. Amsterdam and Bill the Butcher are not the only characters who have their own stories to tell. But it is the confrontation between those two characters which is at the heart of the film. That confrontation is made all the more fascinating by the fact they spend so much of the film as allies, Bill treating Amsterdam quite ironically almost as a son. Knowing Amsterdam's ultimate intentions you almost feel sorry for the Butcher. Almost. Because it is hard to generate true sympathy for this villainous, murderous man. An amazing character brought to life in a tour de force performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis plays the part with white-hot burning intensity. It would be a challenge for any actor to match him but Leonardo DiCaprio proves up to the task in the role of Amsterdam.The brilliant performance of Day-Lewis is the best thing the film has to offer but there is much more here to catch the eye. DiCaprio is excellent as well and a fine cast of supporting players chip in splendidly. Most notable are Brendan Gleeson as another Irishman who will cross the Butcher and Jim Broadbent as the gleefully corrupt Boss Tweed. John C. Reilly, Henry Thomas, Liam Neeson and a host of lesser-known performers help to bring the Five Points to life. Perhaps the only misstep is Cameron Diaz who never entirely convinces in her role of a woman caught between Amsterdam and the Butcher. Diaz is not awful by any means but her performance just seems off a bit, she never quite seems to fit the role. Another issue comes with the film's ending, the sense that the climax doesn't quite match the epic opening. But these are only minor quibbles with a generally excellent film. Scorsese tells his fascinating story well, eventually weaving the larger war story into the mix. We see not just a personal battle between two men but ultimately a nation indeed being born in the streets. Visually the film is a masterpiece, Scorsese filling the frame beautifully. The bloody opening battle sets the tone for both the film's story and its look. The story holds your interest throughout and the look of the piece is just remarkable, the Five Points brought to brilliant life. This is a story which demanded to be told and that story could not have been placed in any better hands than those of Scorsese. This film does justice to those history has largely forgotten, those who through their working, living and dying built America.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1239

ur0915482

title: Born in the streets review: Gangs of New York takes a fascinating look at a largely forgotten slice of American history. As the film's tagline states, America was born in the streets. This is the tale of the 19th century Irish immigrants who came to New York City to build a new life for themselves and of the "Natives" who tormented them. Put "Natives" in quotation marks because they are not natives at all, their ancestors came over from Europe just as the Irish were doing now. But, led by the villainous Bill the Butcher, the Natives make life miserable for the poor Irish who are just trying to survive in New York's notorious Five Points slum. Bill the Butcher rules the Five Points with an iron fist, the Irish rally behind their own leader, Priest Vallon, to oppose him. The film opens with a battle in the streets, the Butcher's gang of Natives squaring off with the Priest's Dead Rabbits, his gang of Irishmen (and an Irish lady, the fearsome Hell-Cat Maggie). Carnage ensues, this is one of the most violent, blood-soaked scenes ever seen in any film. Brutal, raw violence, hand-to-hand combat which ends with Priest Vallon falling under the Butcher's knife. Young Amsterdam Vallon witnesses his father's death. He is sent off to the orphanage. He'll be back.16 years pass before Amsterdam returns to the Five Points. It is now 1862, the Civil War now rages and that war will come to touch the city. But the story the film follows is not of the grand scope of the great war but a smaller, more personal tale of Amsterdam's quest for vengeance. But it is not as easy as just turning up in the Five Points and stabbing Bill the Butcher while he sleeps. Bill is the king of the Five Points and you kill a king where everyone can watch him die. Amsterdam makes plans to kill the Butcher at the annual commemoration of the victory of the Natives over the Dead Rabbits. But that is months away. In the meantime Amsterdam falls under Bill's sway, rising to become the right-hand man of the unwitting Butcher who does not know the young man's true identity. Eventually the time will come when Amsterdam must make his move. And then things will explode.While the tale that Martin Scorsese tells here is a highly fictionalized account of what went on in the Five Points it is still a very worthy look at that unique time and place. The main storyline here may seem to be just a simple revenge story but there is so much else swirling around. Amsterdam and Bill the Butcher are not the only characters who have their own stories to tell. But it is the confrontation between those two characters which is at the heart of the film. That confrontation is made all the more fascinating by the fact they spend so much of the film as allies, Bill treating Amsterdam quite ironically almost as a son. Knowing Amsterdam's ultimate intentions you almost feel sorry for the Butcher. Almost. Because it is hard to generate true sympathy for this villainous, murderous man. An amazing character brought to life in a tour de force performance by Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis plays the part with white-hot burning intensity. It would be a challenge for any actor to match him but Leonardo DiCaprio proves up to the task in the role of Amsterdam.The brilliant performance of Day-Lewis is the best thing the film has to offer but there is much more here to catch the eye. DiCaprio is excellent as well and a fine cast of supporting players chip in splendidly. Most notable are Brendan Gleeson as another Irishman who will cross the Butcher and Jim Broadbent as the gleefully corrupt Boss Tweed. John C. Reilly, Henry Thomas, Liam Neeson and a host of lesser-known performers help to bring the Five Points to life. Perhaps the only misstep is Cameron Diaz who never entirely convinces in her role of a woman caught between Amsterdam and the Butcher. Diaz is not awful by any means but her performance just seems off a bit, she never quite seems to fit the role. Another issue comes with the film's ending, the sense that the climax doesn't quite match the epic opening. But these are only minor quibbles with a generally excellent film. Scorsese tells his fascinating story well, eventually weaving the larger war story into the mix. We see not just a personal battle between two men but ultimately a nation indeed being born in the streets. Visually the film is a masterpiece, Scorsese filling the frame beautifully. The bloody opening battle sets the tone for both the film's story and its look. The story holds your interest throughout and the look of the piece is just remarkable, the Five Points brought to brilliant life. This is a story which demanded to be told and that story could not have been placed in any better hands than those of Scorsese. This film does justice to those history has largely forgotten, those who through their working, living and dying built America.

When Daniel Day-Lewis gives a bad performance, you know you're in trouble

tt0217505

The Plot - sort of a West Side Story for the post-Colonial age, with Irish immigrants fighting their "native" oppressors. One of the ringleaders of the "natives" is a ferocious, cantankerous, and most likely insane fellow with a glass eye known as William Cutting, AKA: Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis); based on a real person. Bill the Butcher kills the leader of an Irish gang called the Dead Rabbits, that leader being "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson) during a gang fight. Years later, Vallon's son, Amsterdam (Leonardo Dicaprio) having achieved adulthood, seeks revenge on Bill (who hasn't aged a day), but first infiltrates Bill's gang and becomes a kind of student to him. Later Amsterdam gets involved with pretty thief Jenny (Cameron Diaz), who has a sordid, seedy past with Bill the Butcher. Love, lust, betrayal, the Draft Riots, chaos and mayhem ensues.In the end, the film is a mess. An ambitious, beautiful looking mess, but a mess all the same. Despite it's lofty dreams of examining the oft forgotten trouble of the time period and having the much beloved director Martin Scorsese at the helm, the film never really becomes cohesive and the characters are for the most part not all that likable or interesting. Perhaps the biggest disappointment is Daniel Day-Lewis, one of the most charismatic and engaging actors of his generation, but one whose film output is so sporadic that he was missing in action for five years before making this, his much hailed return to the cinematic screen. And, unfortunately, Day-Lewis gives a Razzie worthy performance. Whatever skill or passion or dedication he put into the character just doesn't transfer well to the screen. In the end, Day-Lewis, complete with an irritating accent, comes across as being little more than a one-note cartoon villain. I can only assume that the character looked better on paper. The film also wastes Liam Neeson, who appears only too briefly as the stalwart Irishman whose courage inspired all and impressed Bill. Perhaps a more engaging story could have been found in focusing on the conflict between Day-Lewis and Neeson, but alas, this was not to be.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1050

ur2293681

title: When Daniel Day-Lewis gives a bad performance, you know you're in trouble review: The Plot - sort of a West Side Story for the post-Colonial age, with Irish immigrants fighting their "native" oppressors. One of the ringleaders of the "natives" is a ferocious, cantankerous, and most likely insane fellow with a glass eye known as William Cutting, AKA: Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis); based on a real person. Bill the Butcher kills the leader of an Irish gang called the Dead Rabbits, that leader being "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson) during a gang fight. Years later, Vallon's son, Amsterdam (Leonardo Dicaprio) having achieved adulthood, seeks revenge on Bill (who hasn't aged a day), but first infiltrates Bill's gang and becomes a kind of student to him. Later Amsterdam gets involved with pretty thief Jenny (Cameron Diaz), who has a sordid, seedy past with Bill the Butcher. Love, lust, betrayal, the Draft Riots, chaos and mayhem ensues.In the end, the film is a mess. An ambitious, beautiful looking mess, but a mess all the same. Despite it's lofty dreams of examining the oft forgotten trouble of the time period and having the much beloved director Martin Scorsese at the helm, the film never really becomes cohesive and the characters are for the most part not all that likable or interesting. Perhaps the biggest disappointment is Daniel Day-Lewis, one of the most charismatic and engaging actors of his generation, but one whose film output is so sporadic that he was missing in action for five years before making this, his much hailed return to the cinematic screen. And, unfortunately, Day-Lewis gives a Razzie worthy performance. Whatever skill or passion or dedication he put into the character just doesn't transfer well to the screen. In the end, Day-Lewis, complete with an irritating accent, comes across as being little more than a one-note cartoon villain. I can only assume that the character looked better on paper. The film also wastes Liam Neeson, who appears only too briefly as the stalwart Irishman whose courage inspired all and impressed Bill. Perhaps a more engaging story could have been found in focusing on the conflict between Day-Lewis and Neeson, but alas, this was not to be.

Totally Underrated!

tt0217505

For me, most of the films in 2002 sucked hard, but this film grasped me completely with a sense of amazement and darkness. i have not seen many Scorsese films, but of the ones I've seen, this is his best! The film is based on the brutal, depressing, and savagery of New York before modernization. It goes back in the 1800s before and during the Civil war. it was the time when gangs ruled the streets, the cops were outnumbered and corrupt, and the majority of people suffered.The story follows a man named Amsterdam Vallon (Leo DiCaprio), who as a child, in the beginning, witnesses his father, Priet Vallon (Liam Neeson), brutally murdered in a vicious and highly intense brawl of hundreds of men slaughtering one another when the streets and the snow in 1846. He was murdered by a man named Will Cutting, or has he was known as Bill the Bucher, outstandingly played by Daniel Day-lewis.After sixteen years of the fight in the streets in 1846, Vallon returns as a young man to find the man who killed his father, and seek vengeance. he returns to the New York City which has only grown deeper into a city of sin to find Bill the Butcher. He encounters many obstacles including a young woman, they call a 'turtle dove' (Cameron Diaz who pick-pockets for a living.He later on finds Bill, and instead of seeking immediate vengeance he develops an unusual father-and-son relationship that makes the film all the powerful. Amsterdam, head-on learns the true nature of New York and how to survive in it with victory. But when Bill learns Amsterdam's intentions, he is banished and therefore he builds an army to take on Bill and his gang of the Five Points to rule New York City. little does everyone know that the war is worsening, and it'll outbreak in the city itself, creating chaos and inevitable destruction.Winner of ten academy award nominations, the film truly deserved all of them; at least a lot of them. the costumes and set-decorations were authentic and pretty, the cinematography explored the mood of a forgotten city, the music was dark and rather vacant, but above all, the acting by Daniel Day-Lewis was truly Oscar worthy! But this film isn't for everyone. the film is depressing and dark, people, especially woman are portrayed as whores in it, and the violence in this film was deeply brutal. I am not much of a squeamish person, but this film was bad enough to catch me off guard and make me say "oh my God!" literally, there's blood and bodies flowing in the streets in the start and the violent climax.For me, it was probably the year's best film. Everything was great, besides the gritty violence, but also the pace dragged in places. it not only depicts its gritty and violent nature, but also the power of manipulation. 9/10 It's not the best film I've seen, but the best of 2002.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1042

ur3153189

title: Totally Underrated! review: For me, most of the films in 2002 sucked hard, but this film grasped me completely with a sense of amazement and darkness. i have not seen many Scorsese films, but of the ones I've seen, this is his best! The film is based on the brutal, depressing, and savagery of New York before modernization. It goes back in the 1800s before and during the Civil war. it was the time when gangs ruled the streets, the cops were outnumbered and corrupt, and the majority of people suffered.The story follows a man named Amsterdam Vallon (Leo DiCaprio), who as a child, in the beginning, witnesses his father, Priet Vallon (Liam Neeson), brutally murdered in a vicious and highly intense brawl of hundreds of men slaughtering one another when the streets and the snow in 1846. He was murdered by a man named Will Cutting, or has he was known as Bill the Bucher, outstandingly played by Daniel Day-lewis.After sixteen years of the fight in the streets in 1846, Vallon returns as a young man to find the man who killed his father, and seek vengeance. he returns to the New York City which has only grown deeper into a city of sin to find Bill the Butcher. He encounters many obstacles including a young woman, they call a 'turtle dove' (Cameron Diaz who pick-pockets for a living.He later on finds Bill, and instead of seeking immediate vengeance he develops an unusual father-and-son relationship that makes the film all the powerful. Amsterdam, head-on learns the true nature of New York and how to survive in it with victory. But when Bill learns Amsterdam's intentions, he is banished and therefore he builds an army to take on Bill and his gang of the Five Points to rule New York City. little does everyone know that the war is worsening, and it'll outbreak in the city itself, creating chaos and inevitable destruction.Winner of ten academy award nominations, the film truly deserved all of them; at least a lot of them. the costumes and set-decorations were authentic and pretty, the cinematography explored the mood of a forgotten city, the music was dark and rather vacant, but above all, the acting by Daniel Day-Lewis was truly Oscar worthy! But this film isn't for everyone. the film is depressing and dark, people, especially woman are portrayed as whores in it, and the violence in this film was deeply brutal. I am not much of a squeamish person, but this film was bad enough to catch me off guard and make me say "oh my God!" literally, there's blood and bodies flowing in the streets in the start and the violent climax.For me, it was probably the year's best film. Everything was great, besides the gritty violence, but also the pace dragged in places. it not only depicts its gritty and violent nature, but also the power of manipulation. 9/10 It's not the best film I've seen, but the best of 2002.

Chicago won The Best Picture over the Gangs Of New York!Can somebody please rewind the time back in 2002 and blow up the Academy!Thank you!

tt0217505

The 2002 Oscar incident a.k.a Academy votes for Chicago remind's me of another incident back in 1998 when Shakespeare In Love won the best picture over Saving Private Ryan!Back in the 1998 i hoped and prayed that a mistake like that one will never happen again!But,unfortunately,i was wrong!It happened again in 2002 when Gangs Of New York lost The Best Picture because of Chicago which is not a bad movie but also not that good movie to be better than this one.I must say i am honestly doubting in the professionality of the Academy because they've made so many big mistakes that it is impossible to believe in their judgment! As we all know,Gang's Of New York were nominated for ten Academy Award's including those for best screenplay,best costume design,best director and best actor in a leading role(Daniel Day Lewis).The reason i mentioned only those is that beside the best picture nomination,this movie deserved those the most an it didn't get them.And as i said before,i will say for a thousand times more,'Shame on you Academy'!!! To all of you who haven't seen this movie,yet,all i must say is that you should because it's a top notch movie that deserves all of your attention and it definitely deserves to be on IMDb's 250 list but as before,IMDb prooves once more that it suck's sometimes!!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1153

ur19275800

title: Chicago won The Best Picture over the Gangs Of New York!Can somebody please rewind the time back in 2002 and blow up the Academy!Thank you! review: The 2002 Oscar incident a.k.a Academy votes for Chicago remind's me of another incident back in 1998 when Shakespeare In Love won the best picture over Saving Private Ryan!Back in the 1998 i hoped and prayed that a mistake like that one will never happen again!But,unfortunately,i was wrong!It happened again in 2002 when Gangs Of New York lost The Best Picture because of Chicago which is not a bad movie but also not that good movie to be better than this one.I must say i am honestly doubting in the professionality of the Academy because they've made so many big mistakes that it is impossible to believe in their judgment! As we all know,Gang's Of New York were nominated for ten Academy Award's including those for best screenplay,best costume design,best director and best actor in a leading role(Daniel Day Lewis).The reason i mentioned only those is that beside the best picture nomination,this movie deserved those the most an it didn't get them.And as i said before,i will say for a thousand times more,'Shame on you Academy'!!! To all of you who haven't seen this movie,yet,all i must say is that you should because it's a top notch movie that deserves all of your attention and it definitely deserves to be on IMDb's 250 list but as before,IMDb prooves once more that it suck's sometimes!!!

The earth turns but we don't feel it move

tt0217505

When I hear people talk about how America is the greatest country in the world, which is increasingly common from all political standpoints as we approach the 2004 election, it has always struck me how staggeringly wrong that statement is (at least since I traveled in Europe and learned firsthand about other countries). I'm sure I've already angered plenty of the few Americans who may read this review, so I should clarify. America really is a great country, I've lived here for my entire life and plan to live here for the rest of it, but it is simply not the greatest country in the world. That is, in fact, the summation in a single sentence of the common arrogance for which so much of the rest of the world looks at us with disdain.America is not the greatest, but A GREAT country, in a world with MANY OTHER great countries.Martin Scorsese, in keeping with his expanding collection of startlingly realistic gangster movies, has taken the best step that he could possibly have taken at this point in his career, in my opinion. He has gone into the 19th Century to make a film about the origins of the very genre that he knows so well to finally make a film that he had wanted to make for more than two decades. The first thing that struck me about Gangs of New York was the stunningly impressive re-creation of mid-19th Century New York. You can almost smell the horses and dirty people, the gunpowder, the wide-eyed immigrants as they step out of the immigration ship and onto the military to go out and fight for 'their country.' The film immediately makes a harsh criticism of the American tendency toward military violence. Immigrants are shown one document that makes them citizens and another that enlists them in the army, and they are armed and sent to war before they even understand what is happening. The issue of gangs comes up in regards to America as a nation as well as the gangs rivaling each other within the cities. Many people compare current American military action as all too similar to the reaction of an inner city gang – You hit me, we hit you – and Scorsese shows that this is not new at all, it used to be even a desired impression. At one point a character notes, 'True Americans call themselves a gang, but all they do is stand around damning England.' Odd that England should now be our #1 ally in a massively controversial war.It's important to note that the movie is not entirely about the gangs of New York, but sort of a gang mentality that seems to have been disturbingly prevalent since the earliest days of the nation. Criminal gangs run the streets, corrupt politicians meet in smoky rooms to create laws and regulations that make them huge amounts of money and are promptly ignored by the common people, and the government itself bullies immigrants and the poor into the military. Enlist in the military and you go off to fight for a country that you don't even know and only have begun to belong to, but you get paid. Don't enlist, and they'll draft you, and if you get drafted you get no pay. Needless to say, the draft didn't have a lot of fans.That's a serious gamble for someone to take when facing such a monumental struggle as entering another country and hoping to scrape out a living at the same time. It's like playing the lottery with your life. It is indeed an unsettling scene to see bewildered immigrants boarding a ship as coffins are unloaded above them. Although for natives and immigrants alike, a mere $300, a massive amount of money at the time, could buy your 'freedom' from military service. This is another thing that has not changed much to this day. And notice what happens when the poor are forced into military service and the rich buy their way out! Riots!!There are surprising things brought up in the film as well, such as the widespread disgust at Lincoln's having freed the slaves, which today stands as one of the great moments in American history, but the greatest thing that the movie does is show the roots of much of today's unrest in America. The gangs run rampant in the streets, unhindered by such trivialities as the police forces, which are too busy fighting each other to perform much enforcement of the law. Even fire departments fight each other. As is noted early on in the film, New York was not a city, it was more like a furnace.The movie focuses on the life of Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio), whose father, Priest Vallon, played by Liam Neeson, is killed in a gangland massacre at the start of the film. The respect that gangsters had for each other is shown when Bill 'the Butcher' Cutting, the rival gangster (and a staggering performance by Daniel Day-Lewis), protects his body from the post-mortem assaults of his men, asks that his son gets a good education, and even keeps a portrait of him until almost two decades later when he and Amsterdam's fates bring them together again. Cutting is quickly established as a vicious and cruel gangster, but whose chinks are ultimately exposed, although very subtly, because as his largest weapon, like so many dictators today, is fear. He relies on committing fearsome acts in order to preserve the order of things, to keep people afraid and therefore keep himself in a position of power. The knife-throwing scene, for example, is VERY good. It's interesting to see the young New York split by gangs at every level of society, each side claiming their own territory, each side praying to the same God, convinced that God is on their side. At the end of the film there is a heavy lesson to be learned. Vallon and Cutting find themselves laying side-by-side in the street, each badly wounded, and even Cutting, the malicious fear-monger, looks around at the chaos in the street, seemingly shamed to see what he had helped create. 'Friend or foe, didn't make no difference now.' It really makes you think about living your life by the way of the gun when the gravestones start to show up at the end of the film, and then the skyscrapers show up around those. Vallon and Cutting had each created positions of power and influence in New York, but after their violence erupted and destroyed their spheres of influence, 'they build the city back up, and for the rest of time, it's like no one ever knew we was here.'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-928

ur0562732

title: The earth turns but we don't feel it move review: When I hear people talk about how America is the greatest country in the world, which is increasingly common from all political standpoints as we approach the 2004 election, it has always struck me how staggeringly wrong that statement is (at least since I traveled in Europe and learned firsthand about other countries). I'm sure I've already angered plenty of the few Americans who may read this review, so I should clarify. America really is a great country, I've lived here for my entire life and plan to live here for the rest of it, but it is simply not the greatest country in the world. That is, in fact, the summation in a single sentence of the common arrogance for which so much of the rest of the world looks at us with disdain.America is not the greatest, but A GREAT country, in a world with MANY OTHER great countries.Martin Scorsese, in keeping with his expanding collection of startlingly realistic gangster movies, has taken the best step that he could possibly have taken at this point in his career, in my opinion. He has gone into the 19th Century to make a film about the origins of the very genre that he knows so well to finally make a film that he had wanted to make for more than two decades. The first thing that struck me about Gangs of New York was the stunningly impressive re-creation of mid-19th Century New York. You can almost smell the horses and dirty people, the gunpowder, the wide-eyed immigrants as they step out of the immigration ship and onto the military to go out and fight for 'their country.' The film immediately makes a harsh criticism of the American tendency toward military violence. Immigrants are shown one document that makes them citizens and another that enlists them in the army, and they are armed and sent to war before they even understand what is happening. The issue of gangs comes up in regards to America as a nation as well as the gangs rivaling each other within the cities. Many people compare current American military action as all too similar to the reaction of an inner city gang – You hit me, we hit you – and Scorsese shows that this is not new at all, it used to be even a desired impression. At one point a character notes, 'True Americans call themselves a gang, but all they do is stand around damning England.' Odd that England should now be our #1 ally in a massively controversial war.It's important to note that the movie is not entirely about the gangs of New York, but sort of a gang mentality that seems to have been disturbingly prevalent since the earliest days of the nation. Criminal gangs run the streets, corrupt politicians meet in smoky rooms to create laws and regulations that make them huge amounts of money and are promptly ignored by the common people, and the government itself bullies immigrants and the poor into the military. Enlist in the military and you go off to fight for a country that you don't even know and only have begun to belong to, but you get paid. Don't enlist, and they'll draft you, and if you get drafted you get no pay. Needless to say, the draft didn't have a lot of fans.That's a serious gamble for someone to take when facing such a monumental struggle as entering another country and hoping to scrape out a living at the same time. It's like playing the lottery with your life. It is indeed an unsettling scene to see bewildered immigrants boarding a ship as coffins are unloaded above them. Although for natives and immigrants alike, a mere $300, a massive amount of money at the time, could buy your 'freedom' from military service. This is another thing that has not changed much to this day. And notice what happens when the poor are forced into military service and the rich buy their way out! Riots!!There are surprising things brought up in the film as well, such as the widespread disgust at Lincoln's having freed the slaves, which today stands as one of the great moments in American history, but the greatest thing that the movie does is show the roots of much of today's unrest in America. The gangs run rampant in the streets, unhindered by such trivialities as the police forces, which are too busy fighting each other to perform much enforcement of the law. Even fire departments fight each other. As is noted early on in the film, New York was not a city, it was more like a furnace.The movie focuses on the life of Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio), whose father, Priest Vallon, played by Liam Neeson, is killed in a gangland massacre at the start of the film. The respect that gangsters had for each other is shown when Bill 'the Butcher' Cutting, the rival gangster (and a staggering performance by Daniel Day-Lewis), protects his body from the post-mortem assaults of his men, asks that his son gets a good education, and even keeps a portrait of him until almost two decades later when he and Amsterdam's fates bring them together again. Cutting is quickly established as a vicious and cruel gangster, but whose chinks are ultimately exposed, although very subtly, because as his largest weapon, like so many dictators today, is fear. He relies on committing fearsome acts in order to preserve the order of things, to keep people afraid and therefore keep himself in a position of power. The knife-throwing scene, for example, is VERY good. It's interesting to see the young New York split by gangs at every level of society, each side claiming their own territory, each side praying to the same God, convinced that God is on their side. At the end of the film there is a heavy lesson to be learned. Vallon and Cutting find themselves laying side-by-side in the street, each badly wounded, and even Cutting, the malicious fear-monger, looks around at the chaos in the street, seemingly shamed to see what he had helped create. 'Friend or foe, didn't make no difference now.' It really makes you think about living your life by the way of the gun when the gravestones start to show up at the end of the film, and then the skyscrapers show up around those. Vallon and Cutting had each created positions of power and influence in New York, but after their violence erupted and destroyed their spheres of influence, 'they build the city back up, and for the rest of time, it's like no one ever knew we was here.'

A Compelling Watch!

tt0217505

Martin Scorsese has delivered classics all through his prolific career & 'Gangs of New York' is amongst his most accomplished works. A Compelling Watch! 'Gangs of New York' Synopsis: In 1863, Amsterdam Vallon returns to the Five Points area of New York City seeking revenge against Bill the Butcher, his father's killer.'Gangs of New York' is gruesome & disturbing, its certainly not for the faint-hearted. Scorsese's unforgiving direction is raw & real. He executes a vendetta story with aggression & fierce mentality. He handles the violent portions, distinctively. Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian & Kenneth Lonergan's Screenplay is brutal but extremely arresting. Cinematography by Michael Ballhaus is eye-catching. Art Design is magnificent. Performance-Wise: The Greatest Living Actor, Daniel Day-Lewis plays Bill the Butcher, superbly. He plays the loathsome villain to the fullest, delivering each line & each move with magnetic ease. Leonardo DiCaprio as Amsterdam Vallon, the vengeful protagonist, is utterly good. Cameron Diaz as Jenny Everdeane, delivers a career-best-turn. Jim Broadbent as William M. Tweed & Brendan Gleeson as Walter "Monk" McGinn, are terrific. John C. Reilly & Liam Neeson shine in cameos.On the whole, 'Gangs of New York' is winning cinema.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1224

ur8503729

title: A Compelling Watch! review: Martin Scorsese has delivered classics all through his prolific career & 'Gangs of New York' is amongst his most accomplished works. A Compelling Watch! 'Gangs of New York' Synopsis: In 1863, Amsterdam Vallon returns to the Five Points area of New York City seeking revenge against Bill the Butcher, his father's killer.'Gangs of New York' is gruesome & disturbing, its certainly not for the faint-hearted. Scorsese's unforgiving direction is raw & real. He executes a vendetta story with aggression & fierce mentality. He handles the violent portions, distinctively. Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian & Kenneth Lonergan's Screenplay is brutal but extremely arresting. Cinematography by Michael Ballhaus is eye-catching. Art Design is magnificent. Performance-Wise: The Greatest Living Actor, Daniel Day-Lewis plays Bill the Butcher, superbly. He plays the loathsome villain to the fullest, delivering each line & each move with magnetic ease. Leonardo DiCaprio as Amsterdam Vallon, the vengeful protagonist, is utterly good. Cameron Diaz as Jenny Everdeane, delivers a career-best-turn. Jim Broadbent as William M. Tweed & Brendan Gleeson as Walter "Monk" McGinn, are terrific. John C. Reilly & Liam Neeson shine in cameos.On the whole, 'Gangs of New York' is winning cinema.

It'll be talked about for decades to come...

tt0217505

There is a very good reason why "Gangs of New York" was delayed for a whole year that has nothing to do with its bloated budget and extended shooting schedule. There was a little event called 9/11. With this epic masterpiece that is as brilliant in its flaws as it is in its triumphs (which, by the way, far outnumber the flaws), Scorsese ultimately paints a picture of America that some, in lieu of 9/11, might find very unpatriotic. In the end (POTENTIAL SPOILERS), he seems to be saying that the biggest "gang" of them all, is/was the American government. Scorsese takes a look at time in history that is largely unknown to people when New York City was ruled by gangs (usually natives vs. immigrants) and corrupt politicians who could care less about the Civil War or Lincoln or slavery (which is mostly what is taught now in history class about this era). The central historical event in the beginning is the brutal Five Points Gang War of 1846. This is mirrored at the climatic end by the Draft Riots near the end of the Civil War. The US government sends in the military to stop the riots and they leave countless numbers dead and the city in ruin. It is here, where the ways of the Old World (honorable territorial fights between gangs) are supplanted by the ways of a New Era (big government crashing down on you). At any rate, despite its pageantry and epic proportions and very melodramatic revenge plot (which many will see as a plus, and on all counts is wondrous and beautifully executed), this is still at its heart a Scorsese picture. This means a whole lot of the ultra violence, snazzy camera work (lots of dolly shots), interesting uses of music to punctuate the drama (I really loved the period minstrel music while the schizophrenic music score was a bit distracting), degradation of women (in service of the plot and the usually despicable male characters, by no means indicative of Scorsese's feelings towards women IMHO, though many might debate this point), and lots and lots of blood. Scorsese fans should rejoice at this. Any fan of cinema should want to see it for the grand spectacle of it all (the all non-CGI sets built in Rome are fantastic in that old fashioned classic Hollywood way, and the costumes are magnificent in a post-modern Dickensian kind of way...a lot of imagination and thought went into every aspect of this film), and of course, Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of Bill the Butcher is worth the price of admission alone. However, if you are not a student of cinema or fan of Scorsese, you may find this all a bit overblown, over the top, and painfully long. Love it or loathe it, this will be a film discussed and debated for all time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-26

ur1069062

title: It'll be talked about for decades to come... review: There is a very good reason why "Gangs of New York" was delayed for a whole year that has nothing to do with its bloated budget and extended shooting schedule. There was a little event called 9/11. With this epic masterpiece that is as brilliant in its flaws as it is in its triumphs (which, by the way, far outnumber the flaws), Scorsese ultimately paints a picture of America that some, in lieu of 9/11, might find very unpatriotic. In the end (POTENTIAL SPOILERS), he seems to be saying that the biggest "gang" of them all, is/was the American government. Scorsese takes a look at time in history that is largely unknown to people when New York City was ruled by gangs (usually natives vs. immigrants) and corrupt politicians who could care less about the Civil War or Lincoln or slavery (which is mostly what is taught now in history class about this era). The central historical event in the beginning is the brutal Five Points Gang War of 1846. This is mirrored at the climatic end by the Draft Riots near the end of the Civil War. The US government sends in the military to stop the riots and they leave countless numbers dead and the city in ruin. It is here, where the ways of the Old World (honorable territorial fights between gangs) are supplanted by the ways of a New Era (big government crashing down on you). At any rate, despite its pageantry and epic proportions and very melodramatic revenge plot (which many will see as a plus, and on all counts is wondrous and beautifully executed), this is still at its heart a Scorsese picture. This means a whole lot of the ultra violence, snazzy camera work (lots of dolly shots), interesting uses of music to punctuate the drama (I really loved the period minstrel music while the schizophrenic music score was a bit distracting), degradation of women (in service of the plot and the usually despicable male characters, by no means indicative of Scorsese's feelings towards women IMHO, though many might debate this point), and lots and lots of blood. Scorsese fans should rejoice at this. Any fan of cinema should want to see it for the grand spectacle of it all (the all non-CGI sets built in Rome are fantastic in that old fashioned classic Hollywood way, and the costumes are magnificent in a post-modern Dickensian kind of way...a lot of imagination and thought went into every aspect of this film), and of course, Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of Bill the Butcher is worth the price of admission alone. However, if you are not a student of cinema or fan of Scorsese, you may find this all a bit overblown, over the top, and painfully long. Love it or loathe it, this will be a film discussed and debated for all time.

Grandiose.

tt0217505

While I do have some complaints with the way that Scorsese handled the film's style I found it to be a very enjoyable film highlighted by one of the finest performances of all time. The editing during the fight scenes happens way too quickly and becomes convoluted, and the way that he introduced us to the era seemed far too rushed and never really let us understand the surroundings that we were placed in. The script does a good job of explaining the politics of the time period and what was happening in New York at that time in history, but the introduction to it all felt really forced and rushed. But once I got used to that, it was quite easy to immerse myself into the setting. The art direction and costume design is phenomenal and all of the actors do a great job of making us feel like we're there with them.In order for me to like a film I have to like the story and Gangs of New York has the benefit of being a sensational, almost Shakespearean, tragedy which I absolutely adore. The story centers around Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) who, as a child, sees his father slain in battle by the menacing Bill "The Butcher" Cunning (Daniel Day-Lewis). He flees the scene and lives at the church for sixteen years before returning to the place where his father died and is re-introduced to the world that he once knew which is almost exactly the same, with the addition Bill running everything with an iron fist. Amsterdam succeeds in becoming a close associate of Bill's, eventually becoming basically his right-hand man and saving his life at one point. He does all of this for the chance to avenge his father and murder The Butcher in cold blood. As I said, the story is very Shakespearean and that's what I love about it and that's why the ending was a bit of a let-down. It doesn't follow continue with it's tragedy roots and that disappointed me but it was still handled quite nicely.Of course with Daniel Day-Lewis being my favorite actor and his extremely strong selection process I'm more than likely going to adore his performance, and that's very true for his portrayal of Bill. His brooding intensity, flawless accent and ability to strike cold fear into someone while saying the most polite things truly make it one of the most astonishing performances of all time. Just plain brilliant. Everyone else in the cast is quite nice; DiCaprio is great, Diaz is above average, John C. Reilly and Brendan Gleeson provide fine support but it's ultimately Daniel's show and he amazes us as always. Overall, Gangs of New York really is a great film, regardless of some flaws scattered along the way, which follows a brilliant story and holds one of the finest performances of all time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1113

ur9521536

title: Grandiose. review: While I do have some complaints with the way that Scorsese handled the film's style I found it to be a very enjoyable film highlighted by one of the finest performances of all time. The editing during the fight scenes happens way too quickly and becomes convoluted, and the way that he introduced us to the era seemed far too rushed and never really let us understand the surroundings that we were placed in. The script does a good job of explaining the politics of the time period and what was happening in New York at that time in history, but the introduction to it all felt really forced and rushed. But once I got used to that, it was quite easy to immerse myself into the setting. The art direction and costume design is phenomenal and all of the actors do a great job of making us feel like we're there with them.In order for me to like a film I have to like the story and Gangs of New York has the benefit of being a sensational, almost Shakespearean, tragedy which I absolutely adore. The story centers around Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) who, as a child, sees his father slain in battle by the menacing Bill "The Butcher" Cunning (Daniel Day-Lewis). He flees the scene and lives at the church for sixteen years before returning to the place where his father died and is re-introduced to the world that he once knew which is almost exactly the same, with the addition Bill running everything with an iron fist. Amsterdam succeeds in becoming a close associate of Bill's, eventually becoming basically his right-hand man and saving his life at one point. He does all of this for the chance to avenge his father and murder The Butcher in cold blood. As I said, the story is very Shakespearean and that's what I love about it and that's why the ending was a bit of a let-down. It doesn't follow continue with it's tragedy roots and that disappointed me but it was still handled quite nicely.Of course with Daniel Day-Lewis being my favorite actor and his extremely strong selection process I'm more than likely going to adore his performance, and that's very true for his portrayal of Bill. His brooding intensity, flawless accent and ability to strike cold fear into someone while saying the most polite things truly make it one of the most astonishing performances of all time. Just plain brilliant. Everyone else in the cast is quite nice; DiCaprio is great, Diaz is above average, John C. Reilly and Brendan Gleeson provide fine support but it's ultimately Daniel's show and he amazes us as always. Overall, Gangs of New York really is a great film, regardless of some flaws scattered along the way, which follows a brilliant story and holds one of the finest performances of all time.

Scorsese and Day-Lewis is back with a vengeance

tt0217505

The world's best living director Martin Scorsese has made this epic, fabulous, dramatic and bloody movie about 19th Centuries New York City.We've got good actors all the way; Daniel Day - Lewis (who rules), Cameron Diaz, John C. Reilly, Liam Neeson, Leo DiCaprio and more. It's excitement and high dramatic on the best level, it's cruel and evil all the way but in the same way packed with emotions and feelings."On your order Vallon" STORY: 1846 a battle between the native Americans lead by Bill the Butcher and the Irish immigrants lead by Priest Vallon takes place on Paradise square - Five Points in New York. Bill strikes the Priest down and kills him - 17 years later - the son returns for the vengeance of his father. Amsterdam Vallon has the strategy - on the early celebration of Bill's victory over the Priest he plans killing Bill in front off the crowds. He takes his way into the cruelty, evilness and ruling gang lead by Bill the Butcher going now under the name William Cutting. But longer and longer he gets into the circle he gets more and more fascinated by his father's murder. But sooner or later the truth has to reach the surface...and then, there will be no mercy..."He was the last man I killed worth remembering" Daniel Day - Lewis deserves extremly much of the honour this being a good film, he does the best De Niro - he even does it better! His brilliant accent, style and cruelty, unforgettable quotes - yes, he is simply just perfect in his character as Bill the Butcher. His performance is there by declared as one of the film history's best characters - he simply steals the show with a twist on the finger. Scorsese (GoodFellas, Casino, Kundun, The colour of the money, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver) has put art, fine and smooth - without doubt this was the best movie! It should have won all 10 Acedemy Awards!! They're back with a vengeance, wanting people too see that Day - Lewis still know how to act, and that really well too! The music is so moody and fine that the hair starts rising on your back - the movie is perfect in every way, it's so great and wonderful that sometimes it can't be described by words!"I'm going to paint paradise square with his blood. Two coats!"Leo DiCaprio did make one good movie before this; yes, don't be shy - or. Well, "Titanic" was after all a seriously good movie, but then he made this weird and stupid "The Beach" that got me starting don't like him. Now he returns with Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese on his lap - "Catch me if you can" and "Gangs of New York", but memorable movies! Cameron Diaz is also a actress with respect, though she maybe being a teenage - actor (It's something about Mary, The Sweetest Thing, My best friend's wedding, Charlie's Angels - ) she now shows that also she can be more then a pretty face. But as said, against Daniel Day - Lewis they are all just supporting roles. Nominated to 10 Oscars not winning one is a shame for the Oscars!"That's a wound" Bloody, brutal and violent - in each way. Dramatic, romantic and epic in each way. Exciting, thrilling and stunning in each way. Big!!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-646

ur1732001

title: Scorsese and Day-Lewis is back with a vengeance review: The world's best living director Martin Scorsese has made this epic, fabulous, dramatic and bloody movie about 19th Centuries New York City.We've got good actors all the way; Daniel Day - Lewis (who rules), Cameron Diaz, John C. Reilly, Liam Neeson, Leo DiCaprio and more. It's excitement and high dramatic on the best level, it's cruel and evil all the way but in the same way packed with emotions and feelings."On your order Vallon" STORY: 1846 a battle between the native Americans lead by Bill the Butcher and the Irish immigrants lead by Priest Vallon takes place on Paradise square - Five Points in New York. Bill strikes the Priest down and kills him - 17 years later - the son returns for the vengeance of his father. Amsterdam Vallon has the strategy - on the early celebration of Bill's victory over the Priest he plans killing Bill in front off the crowds. He takes his way into the cruelty, evilness and ruling gang lead by Bill the Butcher going now under the name William Cutting. But longer and longer he gets into the circle he gets more and more fascinated by his father's murder. But sooner or later the truth has to reach the surface...and then, there will be no mercy..."He was the last man I killed worth remembering" Daniel Day - Lewis deserves extremly much of the honour this being a good film, he does the best De Niro - he even does it better! His brilliant accent, style and cruelty, unforgettable quotes - yes, he is simply just perfect in his character as Bill the Butcher. His performance is there by declared as one of the film history's best characters - he simply steals the show with a twist on the finger. Scorsese (GoodFellas, Casino, Kundun, The colour of the money, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver) has put art, fine and smooth - without doubt this was the best movie! It should have won all 10 Acedemy Awards!! They're back with a vengeance, wanting people too see that Day - Lewis still know how to act, and that really well too! The music is so moody and fine that the hair starts rising on your back - the movie is perfect in every way, it's so great and wonderful that sometimes it can't be described by words!"I'm going to paint paradise square with his blood. Two coats!"Leo DiCaprio did make one good movie before this; yes, don't be shy - or. Well, "Titanic" was after all a seriously good movie, but then he made this weird and stupid "The Beach" that got me starting don't like him. Now he returns with Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese on his lap - "Catch me if you can" and "Gangs of New York", but memorable movies! Cameron Diaz is also a actress with respect, though she maybe being a teenage - actor (It's something about Mary, The Sweetest Thing, My best friend's wedding, Charlie's Angels - ) she now shows that also she can be more then a pretty face. But as said, against Daniel Day - Lewis they are all just supporting roles. Nominated to 10 Oscars not winning one is a shame for the Oscars!"That's a wound" Bloody, brutal and violent - in each way. Dramatic, romantic and epic in each way. Exciting, thrilling and stunning in each way. Big!!!

A Bona Fide Gangster Movie

tt0217505

Gangs of New York is a film that has many of Martin Scorsese's typical trademark flourishes and is a worthy film to add to his legendary filmography.The film follows a young Irish immigrant named Amsterdam as he travels through the cutthroat gangs of New York City in 1862, searching for his father's killer, the untouchable, Bill the Butcher.The themes of revenge and vengeance run rampant throughout the film. Amsterdam wishes to avenge his father's murder. Amsterdam's friend Johnny betrays Amsterdam to the Butcher out of revenge for stealing the girl of his dreams. Even Bill the Butcher's striking down of Priest Valon was an act of revenge after the Priest removed his eye.The film was superbly directed by the great Martin Scorsese. The production design was stunning, but what impressed me the most was the acting, in particular Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher. Day-Lewis disappeared within this role like he does with nearly every part he's ever played, and he was definitely on top of his game here as the chilling Butcher.While the film kind of chugs a bit in the middle parts, the beginning and the end form terrific bookends to a highly entertaining, and extremely well-made film.I give Gangs of New York a 9 out of 10!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1161

ur6136793

title: A Bona Fide Gangster Movie review: Gangs of New York is a film that has many of Martin Scorsese's typical trademark flourishes and is a worthy film to add to his legendary filmography.The film follows a young Irish immigrant named Amsterdam as he travels through the cutthroat gangs of New York City in 1862, searching for his father's killer, the untouchable, Bill the Butcher.The themes of revenge and vengeance run rampant throughout the film. Amsterdam wishes to avenge his father's murder. Amsterdam's friend Johnny betrays Amsterdam to the Butcher out of revenge for stealing the girl of his dreams. Even Bill the Butcher's striking down of Priest Valon was an act of revenge after the Priest removed his eye.The film was superbly directed by the great Martin Scorsese. The production design was stunning, but what impressed me the most was the acting, in particular Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher. Day-Lewis disappeared within this role like he does with nearly every part he's ever played, and he was definitely on top of his game here as the chilling Butcher.While the film kind of chugs a bit in the middle parts, the beginning and the end form terrific bookends to a highly entertaining, and extremely well-made film.I give Gangs of New York a 9 out of 10!

The urban jungle is a nest for both snakes and pearls

tt0217505

Strangely enough this film about New York at the time of the Civil War is more about the end of the hellish gate to some kind of lawless and wild wild west it is living through than its real depiction. New York was the immigrating harbor and as such had an enormous and constantly changing population. The turn-over as they say today was extremely rapid. It was also a very cosmopolitan city that accepted all nationalities but also all races. But the political and security organizations and institutions were far from up to what it should have been. In other words, and corruption demultiplied this phenomenon, gangs were everywhere and particularly the good old gang of native Americans, meaning the Americans who had been born in American, in the US, against all the others, the immigrants, the foreigners who come and eat your bread out of your mouth as is well known. Constant fight, constant strife, constant rivalry and daily casualties in a constant violence of every single second, day and night. Killing, hanging, lynching, stabbing, shooting, and so many other variants of these were everyday entertainment and distraction. The film focuses on the Irish as the main opponents of the native American gang. I find the film a little bit complacent as for the picturing and illustrating of this violence, and that pushes other issues a little bit in the background, for instance the rich bourgeoisie of fifth avenue, the merchants and the industrialists. The working class in the sweatshops are not shown either. This is slightly regrettable, because we do not understand then why politicians feel obliged to have some kind of alliance with one gang or the other. They have to choose such an alliance as opposed to the possibility for the working class poor to come together and join forces with the various minorities and fight for their own candidates in the elections. The Civil War provides the best surrounding environment for such a film too because of the anti-draft movement that develops in New York around 1863-64. This anti-draft movement could be the element that might make all the segments of the poor coalesce in one invincible majority. Scorsese shows very well, through the gangs and through the two leaders of native Americans and the Irish, how a possible alliance could have come out of this situation, but the gang war going on prevents basic interests to prevail in the name of jingoistic community interests. Scorsese seems to be wishing for us to believe that gang violence has always been the way for the establishment in New York to sail through all tempests, storms and other social hurricanes. It is a very pessimistic film that opens no perspective whatsoever. Then what about the acting of the various actors ? It is essentially Leornardo Di Caprio that I observed, following his iron hard and steel cold eyes in the film. He is so static most of the time, and when he is not , when he is moving he seems to be sliding slowly across the room, the street or the screen without any body language. Even his face seems to be expressionless except for his eyes. He looks like an actor who has risen or been raised in an environment of violence that has left some kind of shock in him, the shock that makes him step back, melt in the wall tapestry and keep out of trouble all the time. Will he ever learn how to use his body to express feelings, action, speed, and so many elements that have to be made visible on the screen because they cannot be described with words ? He has a real problem now his adolescent looks and naivety and charm have gone and he is obliged to move a body and move in it that has become slightly too heavy for him. Having seen what he did in The Departed, I believe he can learn, but he definitely still has a lot to improve. Good luck on the way to San Francisco.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1069

ur3836774

title: The urban jungle is a nest for both snakes and pearls review: Strangely enough this film about New York at the time of the Civil War is more about the end of the hellish gate to some kind of lawless and wild wild west it is living through than its real depiction. New York was the immigrating harbor and as such had an enormous and constantly changing population. The turn-over as they say today was extremely rapid. It was also a very cosmopolitan city that accepted all nationalities but also all races. But the political and security organizations and institutions were far from up to what it should have been. In other words, and corruption demultiplied this phenomenon, gangs were everywhere and particularly the good old gang of native Americans, meaning the Americans who had been born in American, in the US, against all the others, the immigrants, the foreigners who come and eat your bread out of your mouth as is well known. Constant fight, constant strife, constant rivalry and daily casualties in a constant violence of every single second, day and night. Killing, hanging, lynching, stabbing, shooting, and so many other variants of these were everyday entertainment and distraction. The film focuses on the Irish as the main opponents of the native American gang. I find the film a little bit complacent as for the picturing and illustrating of this violence, and that pushes other issues a little bit in the background, for instance the rich bourgeoisie of fifth avenue, the merchants and the industrialists. The working class in the sweatshops are not shown either. This is slightly regrettable, because we do not understand then why politicians feel obliged to have some kind of alliance with one gang or the other. They have to choose such an alliance as opposed to the possibility for the working class poor to come together and join forces with the various minorities and fight for their own candidates in the elections. The Civil War provides the best surrounding environment for such a film too because of the anti-draft movement that develops in New York around 1863-64. This anti-draft movement could be the element that might make all the segments of the poor coalesce in one invincible majority. Scorsese shows very well, through the gangs and through the two leaders of native Americans and the Irish, how a possible alliance could have come out of this situation, but the gang war going on prevents basic interests to prevail in the name of jingoistic community interests. Scorsese seems to be wishing for us to believe that gang violence has always been the way for the establishment in New York to sail through all tempests, storms and other social hurricanes. It is a very pessimistic film that opens no perspective whatsoever. Then what about the acting of the various actors ? It is essentially Leornardo Di Caprio that I observed, following his iron hard and steel cold eyes in the film. He is so static most of the time, and when he is not , when he is moving he seems to be sliding slowly across the room, the street or the screen without any body language. Even his face seems to be expressionless except for his eyes. He looks like an actor who has risen or been raised in an environment of violence that has left some kind of shock in him, the shock that makes him step back, melt in the wall tapestry and keep out of trouble all the time. Will he ever learn how to use his body to express feelings, action, speed, and so many elements that have to be made visible on the screen because they cannot be described with words ? He has a real problem now his adolescent looks and naivety and charm have gone and he is obliged to move a body and move in it that has become slightly too heavy for him. Having seen what he did in The Departed, I believe he can learn, but he definitely still has a lot to improve. Good luck on the way to San Francisco.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne

Nicely told story of mixed elements.

tt0217505

In the 19th century New York gangs of immigrants and born Americans battle ferociously against each other in order to secure a place for themselves in a golden land of opportunity. "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson) is a leader of Dead Rabbits gang, formed of Irish, and Bill "Butcher" Cutting (Danie Day Lewis) is a leader of opposing Natives gang, that is determined to drive the foreign influence out of the country.Vallon is killed in a battle, but his son Amsterdamn (Leonardo Di Caprio) is left alive to vow vengeance against the Buthcer.When I saw "GoNY" the first time I didn't like it that much, I thought it okay, but nothing more, but later on after a couple of reviews I've warmed up to it much more. Visually speaking the film is very solid piece of work and the old New York looks stunning and the atmosphere is thick and intriguing, as are the multiple character of the story, starting from the Butcher and corrupt politicians to Amsterdams love interest Jenny (Cameron Diaz).The movie flows in somewhere between Shakespearen drama, epic and historical depiction, never really setting itself on any of them, but nicely revolving around them, borrowing elements from here and there, how ever the situation needs. This allows Scorcese to deliver rather stylish looking story about history, revenge and forgiveness.All in all, Gangs of New York is a good film, which might take more than one viewing for it to open up fully.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1139

ur1941835

title: Nicely told story of mixed elements. review: In the 19th century New York gangs of immigrants and born Americans battle ferociously against each other in order to secure a place for themselves in a golden land of opportunity. "Priest" Vallon (Liam Neeson) is a leader of Dead Rabbits gang, formed of Irish, and Bill "Butcher" Cutting (Danie Day Lewis) is a leader of opposing Natives gang, that is determined to drive the foreign influence out of the country.Vallon is killed in a battle, but his son Amsterdamn (Leonardo Di Caprio) is left alive to vow vengeance against the Buthcer.When I saw "GoNY" the first time I didn't like it that much, I thought it okay, but nothing more, but later on after a couple of reviews I've warmed up to it much more. Visually speaking the film is very solid piece of work and the old New York looks stunning and the atmosphere is thick and intriguing, as are the multiple character of the story, starting from the Butcher and corrupt politicians to Amsterdams love interest Jenny (Cameron Diaz).The movie flows in somewhere between Shakespearen drama, epic and historical depiction, never really setting itself on any of them, but nicely revolving around them, borrowing elements from here and there, how ever the situation needs. This allows Scorcese to deliver rather stylish looking story about history, revenge and forgiveness.All in all, Gangs of New York is a good film, which might take more than one viewing for it to open up fully.

personal and Bloody

tt0217505

An in-depth analysis of war, people and the consequences. Revealing the brutality and control over the 5 points, and delivering spellbinding characters and story. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day Lewis and Cameron Diaz and directed by academy award winning director- Martin Scorsese.This could of been given a 10, BUT, it's boring and uninteresting in places, but if its Martin Scorsese you know your in for a treat and full on brutal violence. But he's such a good director.Overall a very good well depth version of rough sided New York in the 1860's. And worth watching, but not for the faint hearted who are not into violence.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1101

ur12009777

title: personal and Bloody review: An in-depth analysis of war, people and the consequences. Revealing the brutality and control over the 5 points, and delivering spellbinding characters and story. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day Lewis and Cameron Diaz and directed by academy award winning director- Martin Scorsese.This could of been given a 10, BUT, it's boring and uninteresting in places, but if its Martin Scorsese you know your in for a treat and full on brutal violence. But he's such a good director.Overall a very good well depth version of rough sided New York in the 1860's. And worth watching, but not for the faint hearted who are not into violence.

too long and pretentious

tt0217505

This has been the last time i fell for director's story about longing to make a movie. During one of the interviews supporting the release, Mr. Scorsese told a heartwarming tale about a childhood dream come true, the dream being Gangs of New York. Yet, after watching the movie i felt betrayed.The plot actually resembles a pulp fiction version of a Charles Dickens novel. The result is a gallery of characters that might be corresponding well with the reality of New York back in the day, but together resemble a freak show on the loose.Except Daniel Day Lewis the crew offers nothing memorable. This is valid also for Mr. Scorsese who squeezed himself and a couple of family members into a cameo appearance.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1243

ur15462771

title: too long and pretentious review: This has been the last time i fell for director's story about longing to make a movie. During one of the interviews supporting the release, Mr. Scorsese told a heartwarming tale about a childhood dream come true, the dream being Gangs of New York. Yet, after watching the movie i felt betrayed.The plot actually resembles a pulp fiction version of a Charles Dickens novel. The result is a gallery of characters that might be corresponding well with the reality of New York back in the day, but together resemble a freak show on the loose.Except Daniel Day Lewis the crew offers nothing memorable. This is valid also for Mr. Scorsese who squeezed himself and a couple of family members into a cameo appearance.

too much of a good thing

tt0217505

It's 1846 in the Five Point neighborhood in NYC. Bill "the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his U.S. born gang kill Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) in a mass gang fight. Little Amsterdam Vallon runs away taking the knife that killed his father. Sixteen years later, Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) returns to the neighborhood from reform house to avenge his father. Johnny Sirocco (Henry Thomas) is a boy from the old days who joins him. He is taken with pickpocket Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz). Bill leads the most powerful gang and everyone are loyal to him. Boss Tweed (Jim Broadbent) in Tammany Hall are in league with him. The country is deep into the Civil War and the city is on the brink of riots. The Priest's old colleges are scattered. Amsterdam insinuates himself into Bill's circle.This is a massive movie from Martin Scorsese. It is an admirable undertaking. Once again, Daniel Day-Lewis delivers a pitch perfect performance. He is exactly Bill the Butcher. He overshadows everybody including Leo. The story is a mess of characters and relationships. The plot really doesn't flow. Everything is played to the fullest. It needs to lay out the story more simply. There is too much here but all of it is impeccably done.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-1270

ur2898520

title: too much of a good thing review: It's 1846 in the Five Point neighborhood in NYC. Bill "the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his U.S. born gang kill Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) in a mass gang fight. Little Amsterdam Vallon runs away taking the knife that killed his father. Sixteen years later, Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) returns to the neighborhood from reform house to avenge his father. Johnny Sirocco (Henry Thomas) is a boy from the old days who joins him. He is taken with pickpocket Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz). Bill leads the most powerful gang and everyone are loyal to him. Boss Tweed (Jim Broadbent) in Tammany Hall are in league with him. The country is deep into the Civil War and the city is on the brink of riots. The Priest's old colleges are scattered. Amsterdam insinuates himself into Bill's circle.This is a massive movie from Martin Scorsese. It is an admirable undertaking. Once again, Daniel Day-Lewis delivers a pitch perfect performance. He is exactly Bill the Butcher. He overshadows everybody including Leo. The story is a mess of characters and relationships. The plot really doesn't flow. Everything is played to the fullest. It needs to lay out the story more simply. There is too much here but all of it is impeccably done.

Strong and Entertaining

tt0217505

Martin Scorsese's movie is close to the best American commercial cinema can get. I do not know to what extent the events described in the movie are true, but they come really alive on the screen. A whole world is brought to our eyes - powerful, violent, colorful and you can really philosophize and say that you understand where the violent power and fascination of today's New York come from. This world seems to come directly from the books of Dickens or Hugo. If the American literature did not have a novel writer of that stature to describe the 19th century society, here comes Scorsese, and re-creates that world one and a half century later on a different media.I am no fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, but he is at his best in this film. Daniel De Lewis has already an Oscar on his shelves, and would have deserved a second one for his creation in this movie. There are a lot of other well acted strong characters in this film, and you can feel the hand of the master in directing the actors, as well as in the camera work. One may say that violence is not always justified by logic but by artistic needs, but these were the times, and there are a few memorable scenes to pay back for this. 9/10 on my personal scale for this strong and entertaining film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217505/reviews-847

ur0547823

title: Strong and Entertaining review: Martin Scorsese's movie is close to the best American commercial cinema can get. I do not know to what extent the events described in the movie are true, but they come really alive on the screen. A whole world is brought to our eyes - powerful, violent, colorful and you can really philosophize and say that you understand where the violent power and fascination of today's New York come from. This world seems to come directly from the books of Dickens or Hugo. If the American literature did not have a novel writer of that stature to describe the 19th century society, here comes Scorsese, and re-creates that world one and a half century later on a different media.I am no fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, but he is at his best in this film. Daniel De Lewis has already an Oscar on his shelves, and would have deserved a second one for his creation in this movie. There are a lot of other well acted strong characters in this film, and you can feel the hand of the master in directing the actors, as well as in the camera work. One may say that violence is not always justified by logic but by artistic needs, but these were the times, and there are a few memorable scenes to pay back for this. 9/10 on my personal scale for this strong and entertaining film.