Gangs Of New York Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x544 | 8942.33 MiB | 720p | |
|
720x288 | 1635.06 MiB | hidivx | |
|
640x260 | 1232.53 MiB | divx | |
|
320x130 | 365.61 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
America Was Born In The Streets.
As waves of immigrants swell the population of New York, lawlessness and corruption thrive in Manhattan's Five Points section. After years of incarceration, young Irish immigrant Amsterdam Vallon returns seeking revenge against the rival gang leader who killed his father. But Amsterdam's personal vendetta becomes part of the gang warfare that erupts as he and his fellow Irishmen fight to carve a place for themselves in their newly adopted homeland!
| Cameron Diaz | Jenny Everdeane |
| Leonardo DiCaprio | Amsterdam Vallon |
| Daniel Day-Lewis | William 'Bill/The Butcher' Cutting |
| Liam Neeson | Priest Vallon |
| Jim Broadbent | William 'Boss' Tweed |
| Henry Thomas | Johnny Sirocco |
| Brendan Gleeson | Walter 'Monk' McGinn |
| John C. Reilly | 'Happy' Jack Mulraney |
| Gary Lewis | McGloin |
| Stephen Graham | Shang |
| Eddie Marsan | Killoran |
| Alec McCowen | Rev. Raleigh |
| Larry Gilliard Jr. | Jimmy Spoils |
| Cara Seymour | Hell-Cat Maggie |
| David Hemmings | Mr. Schermerhorn |
| Martin Scorsese |
7.30 out of 10 (59936 votes)
Visitor Reviews
How did one thin idea become 3 hours?
posted on 28 Aug 2009What on earth was that? One of the worst films I have ever seen - Marty you can keep my money but you owe me 3 hours of my life!***spoilers***The plot was as cliche ridden as it gets - the avenging son, the bad guy with a warped code of honour, the feisty floozy love interest who has history with the bad guy, the double-crossing friend... I could go on.The plot went nowhere. You knew what was going to happen 5 minutes in and 3 hours later, it did. The 2hrs 55 in between was presumably supposed to be character development but did we learn anything about these stereotypes which we hadn't realised 20 seconds after meeting them? Absolutely not.Somebody really should have informed the writer that it's traditional to make the plot and sub-plot interact in some way: None of the backdrop about the draft or the politics had any relevance to the main story which was essentially a mixture of Titanic and Bloodsport (actually van Damme is probably one of the few actors who would have made a worse fist of Amsterdam than Leo did!)Finally the acting: Leo needs to learn a new face other than the cheeky-boy grin and the concentrating furrowed brow. People have raved about Day-Lewis but all I could see was De Niro, who was Scorsese's original choice; he seemed to have been told "Do it the way Bobby would have". The movie said nothing, it just occured. The timing of its release combined with its title and setting might have made it more relevant for some, but without that context it offers nothing.It did have one effect on me: It was the first time that a film made me angry for how poor it was. And boy did it take itself seriously for the kind of story that a 14 year old group of boys could have come up with in a drama lesson!
i can't bring myself to care
posted on 28 Aug 2009Well done for bring to the big screen a little known (social) history of NYC. Beautifully filmed and directed, good use smooth editing that was pacey and original without being intrusive. Up till now a great film! I would like to go on and say it was equally well cast! Well, yes i admit on the whole it was well cast, but for the most part the cast seemed to turn up, move around the screen a bit and collect a cheque! DDL tried his best to carry to rest of quite a substantial army of charter roles and extras but i felt he too just gave up part way through. The gangs were neither hardened, gritty, realistic swines nor lovable, comedy rouges and frankly i don't care if they brought in nuclear subs and bombed them from the bay! Nothing could bring me to care what happened to these people nor believe they actually existed (which apparently they did - not those ones specifically but some like them)quite a failing for character driven piece!
I'd rather be gutted by 'The butcher'...
posted on 24 Aug 2009...than sit through that again.*SPOILER WARNING FOLLOWS*The most ancient and simplest of plots, avenging a slain father, ruined by a self-indulgent, tedious and wandering script.Amsterdam's actions are inexplicable, ignoring the myriad of opportunities he has to exact revenge before his badly telegraphed and failed attempt.Corny, crude and cumbersome.1/10. I want those 168 minutes of my life back.
well made, but pointless
posted on 22 Aug 2009This movie is well made, well acted, well written, and completely pointless. While watching the movie, I really noticed the nearly three hours length. By the end, I just didn't care about the characters or what was happening to them. The back story of the military draft for the civil war and the riots in New York because of it was more interesting to me than the trivial lives of the main characters.5 out of 10
If only this movie knew what it wanted to be
posted on 22 Aug 2009Scorsese is sometimes called "America's Great Director." It's just too bad that his past few films really have been misses instead of hits. Much like "Bringing Out the Dead" "Gangs in New York" is misguided. The story is set around a war between the natives (people born in America) and the Irish who have just come off the boat. They battle for control of 5 points. But what for? I never really got an answer other than respect or control over an area. Well, then why not make this film in 1980's and make them punk gangs. Because there are too many issues introduced from a historical standpoint that smokescreen the point of the film.You can tell by the first battle scene that something is very wrong with this movie. Both groups have swords and clubs like some medieval battle, but the first couple of people who are cut down no blood is shown. Why not? It is an R rated film. Infact for all of the people killed the blood should have soaked the ground. The blood against the snow would have been a good idea, but it is shown as barely a pink color. Some films are great with an opening battle scene: Braveheart, Gladiator, and Saving Private Ryan. This one is very uneventful other than to set out the main character's revenge trail.The film is set against the draft of the Civil War, slavery, immigration problems and all the things New Yorkers had to deal with during the Civil War. Basically too many issues to have for one movie, at least not a 3 hour movie-- more like a 5 hour. So already the film is full with those issues, now, throw in a revenge and love story. Is that too much? How about a riot with Union Soldiers interrupting the final battle scene? How about an election for public office? Oh what's this movie about again? Who knows. I spent some time after seeing it and wondered if this was some project that was forced to be made because of all the post-production put into it. It was shot almost 2 years ago. This movie reminds us that if something sits on the shelf too long that should have been forgotten.My advice to anyone planning to spend the money on watching this film is to go to a library and read up on early American History, perhaps then you will be able to make more sense than this film did. There are too many issues to pay attention to and it distracts from what could have been a great movie. Better luck next Scorsese.
Good, But Somewhat Overrated!
posted on 20 Aug 2009When this movie first came out, it looked like a promising film. It took me awhile to finally watch it. Whilst this movie is great, it does not deserve to be nominated for Best Picture. It simply was not that good, but it was good enough for me to be satisfied.This film is takes place in New York City before and during the Civil War years. Young Amsterdam just witnessed his father being murdered in a gang war. Sixteen years later, he vows revenge.The acting is great for the most part. Leonardo DiCaprio impresses me no matter what movie he's in. Daniel-Day Lewis is another great actor with great skill and he showed it in this movie.Some people found this film moving and disturbing. That is because this movie accurately shows what the Five Points of New York was like and why they hated the Irish immigrants.The score in this film is decent, not great. The U2 song is very good, though.Overall, Martin Scorcese did a great job even though he might be losing it a bit. I rate this movie 8/10.
Dust off a spot next to "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas" and make room for "Gangs of New York".
posted on 18 Aug 2009GANGS OF NEW YORKMPAA: Rated R
Runtime: 166 minutesTagline: "America Was Born In The Streets"CAST: Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz, Jim Broadbent, Brendan Gleeson, Liam Neeson, John C. Reilly, David Hemmings, and Henry Thomas WRITTEN BY: Jay Cocks ("The Age of Innocence"), Steven Zaillan ("Schindler's List"), Kenneth Lonergan ("You Can Count On Me") DIRECTED BY: Martin Scorsese ("Mean Streets," "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull," "Goodfellas")PLOT: The year is 1863 and the setting is New York's five points, which is historically considered the most violent part of the world at the time. The film's back story deals with the conflict between "native" gangs and Irish immigrant gangs, as the forefront of the film delves into the character of Amsterdam Vallon (Leonard DiCaprio), who seeks revenge against Bill "The Butcher" (Daniel Day-Lewis), his father's killer.
REVIEW: Compelling. That is one word that you could use to describe Martin Scorsese's epic film, "Gangs of New York". Other words you could use are mesmerizing, brilliant and all those other fancy words that critics like to use on such Oscar nominated films. But this time, these words are appropriate and well deserved. "Gangs of New York," which was originally conceived back in 1978, stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Daniel Day Lewis, who is absolutely brilliant. Ahh, there's that word again! But yet, it is true. Daniel Day-Lewis' performance of Bill "The Butcher" is one of the most amazing performances in quite sometime. And though, Lewis steals every scene he's in, the supporting cast is also quite effective. Most notably, Jim Broadbent as William Tweed, Cameron Diaz as Jenny, and Liam Neeson is excellent in his brief turn as Priest Vallon. But don't forget the meticulous screenplay, the detailed set designs and the impeccable direction of Martin Scorsese, who surprisingly has yet to win a Best Director Oscar. However, I will have my fingers crossed for him (and Daniel Day-Lewis) on March 23rd. OVERALL: Dust off a spot next to "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas" and make room for "Gangs of New York". ***1/2 (out of 4 stars)
Amazing film; I can't understand the hate.
posted on 18 Aug 2009Many years after his father's murder, Amsterdam Vallon returns to the Five Points of New York in 1863 to seek revenge on Bill 'the Butcher' Cutting, the man who killed his father.For the several past reviews on IMDb have said negative comments, that the film is boring, has bad acting and has a horrible story. I think the opposite. Leonardo DiCaprio and Daniel Day-Lewis were great in their roles. Martin Scorsese gives an excellent direction, and the story was outstanding. If anyone actually took the time to learn about the history of New York, then they would actually understand this movie. Some of the characters in the film were based on real-life characters, such as Bill the Butcher.This is a misunderstood film that I thought was an impressive epic. Should have been Best Picture. ****.
Don't waste your dough
posted on 10 Aug 2009Whatever you do, do not waste your dough on this trash. They say it's directed by Martin Scorsese, but it was obviously directed by Kevin Costner. Think *WaterWorld* without the pleasant diversion of being able to look at the ocean. Not only is it pointlessly violent (and I'm a guy who doesn't at all mind the occasional decapitation or disemboweling as someone is telling me a story), but my god is this moving BORING!SPOILERS FOLLOW.Daniel Day-Lewis plays a Bill Sykes-send up with a truly laughable makeup job and an accent that's as carefree as the wind. You never really know why he hates Irish immigrants so much (a mere generation away from being an immigrant himself), and you never understand why everyone in The Five Points slum is so loyal toward and protective of him when he does absolutely nothing to alleviate the poverty and squalor of their senseless, miserable lives. (Oh yeah, since his legitimate front is as a butcher, he occasionally throws a decent steak their way.) Don't get me started on Cameron Diaz, The Whore With The Heart of Gold (because THAT's a story that hasn't been told enough) who, inexplicably is the only character in the movie with clean teeth. Liam Neeson, who croaks before the end of the first reel, is one lucky bastard.After the first 20 minutes, of course, anyone not watching the movie in Braille understands perfectly what the one and only dramatic issue is going to be (REVENGE!!) and you can step out for Chinese while the movie drags its ass toward its inevitable and tedious conclusion. Granted, *Gangs* might have made some use of the obvious Shakespearean themes, but Scorsese doesn't even try to handle them. Thus, though you might entertain a flicker of interest in the Hamletesque question of whether the son will avenge the father, you wind up so bored w/DiCaprio that you don't freakin' care anymore by the time he gets around to doing the deed (which is rather done for him before he even bothers to show up).In fact, though Leonardo keeps staring out at you from that bland little face and trying to convince you that he's struggling with Complex Moral Issues, the fact is: Every single person in this movie is reprehensible and evil, with differences in degree but never in kind. And if there are no good guys, why are you supposed to be cheering at the climactic scene when (for about the 11th time) the streets yet again run gooey w/blood and body parts?And yet, Scorsese tries. Toward the end of the movie, he picks up the nearest blunt instrument and bashes away at the plot until he's grafted an obvious hero (DiCaprio) and an irrelevant hetero love story (DiCaprio and Diaz) onto it. In other words, Martin Scorsese has nothing but contempt for you. You're too stupid to realize that DiCaprio's character is a venal, murderous little crook and you'll be mollified by a pretty romance between him and a sociopathic pickpocket prostitute. Because the history of America began between the sheets.This is the movie you'd get if Oliver Stone and Hannibal Lecter collaborated on an American history epic, and it's about as cynical a piece of trash as I hope never again to see.
Were New York gangs really this funny?
posted on 10 Aug 2009Daniel Day Lewis should have won an oscar for his method - routine portrayal of charismatic Bill the butcher who undoubtedly, is one of the few things to preach about in this Scorsese epic. Of course, with the acclaimed director at the helm Gangs of New York film is technically great with some memorable shots (one crane shot into the opening battle is particularly impressive) and superb attention to detail - like the use of a barrel to cover a fire hydrant. It's not something that is exploited, but amusing none the less. However, Diaz and Di Caprio are at their most boring and the films use of colourful clothing dilutes the power Scorsese is trying to achieve. Therefore the streets and gangsters don't feel threatening, only comical.
Scorsese's Best Film
posted on 06 Aug 2009If you are a fan of Martin Scorsese, Gangs of New York is his best film yet. The story is absolutely spectacular and the historical aspect is very interesting. Scorsese should win his first Oscar with this one. My favorite Scorsese film has always been Raging Bull but Gangs of New York ranks right up there with it.
The best picture of 2002
posted on 02 Aug 2009I usually do not review movies because I think it's a waste of time, since I won't say anything what the other reviewers already have. But I felt that it is different with Gangs of New York. This is just one terrific movie.Caution: `The 2nd half of this paragraph contains slight spoilers' And yes, all you people who worship `Lord of the Rings.' This movie blows LOTR away. It is much more realistic (LotR is just ridiculously fantastical). The Two Towers is much worse than everyone says it is. It's actually disappointing compared to the first, but the depth of the story in the second is what makes so many people say that it is better than the first, when in fact it is not. On top of being more realistic, the acting is far better, too. Just look at the infamous William Cutting. It does not matter what anyone says: Daniel Day-Lewis showcases one of the greatest performances in cinematic history as the gutless Bill ‘The Butcher.' His performance in GoNY is majorly underrated, and will never be given the credit and respect it deserves. Just look at the scene, after the Butcher kills the elected Irish official `Walter 'Monk' McGinn' played by Brendan Gleeson: He sits down to eat his meat, and says one of the most famous speeches in the movie: `....and then I'll festoon my bedchamber with his (referring to Amsterdam) guts....' It's hard to find the words to describe his acting in that particular scene.Cation: `This paragraph contains slight spoilers' Another great part where Daniel Day-Lewis shines is at the Theater after the assassination attempt of Amsterdam Vallon during the celebration of Priest's death. The whole scene is just acted out with such genius and perfection by Day-Lewis, that it leaves so many other actors in the shadow, you could easily proclaim it as being on of the most famous performances ever, by an actor. ( `forgive my bad grammar, but I'm from Germany, and there, one sentence can be as long as a whole paragraph. NO kidding!') There are just too many countless other unforgettable scenes where Daniel-Day Lewis dazzles with its performance to mention them all.Nevertheless, after all that I've said, and all that we have seen from Daniel Day-Lewis's performance, no one should be surprised that the Oscar notch went to Adrien Brody. Come on folks, the academy, with its blatant hypocrisy, awards `The English Patient' with 9 academy awards but gives Steven Spielberg's `The Color Purple' nothing, and on top of that sniffs Spielberg of his nomination for directing this beautiful masterpiece. I don't think that the English Patient was bad in any way, but the greatness between The Color Purple and The English Patient lies in no way within 9 Oscars. That's sheer absurdity. It never made sense to me, and it never will. So, it was to no surprise to me (because it made sense) when Gangs of New York went home with 0 Oscars. But do not be misled by that fact because it does not take away from its greatness. And yes, Gangs of New York is the best movie of 2002, better in every way then Chicago or The Two Towers, or Adaptation, or any other movie of 2002. I am not even going to go into how much superior and grander in scale Gangs is compared to Chicago. It puts the latter to shame. Yet still, don't get me wrong. I do love the Fellowship of the Ring and every time I see it I love it even more. I just cannot say the same about its sequel. But GoNY is a realistic motion picture, and it's about real life because it shows how people lived in New York during the middle of the 19th century. Gangs of New York is a film about history that really did take place, that's why LOTR can and never will be as great as movies like Gangs of New York, Braveheart, Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, The Color Purple, Godfather, Casablanca, etc.Don't misunderstand me, LOTR are movies in their own league, but GoNY, and the other major epic motion pictures mentioned in the text above are much more powerful because their issues and characters are authentic, and although some of them are fictional (e.g. Forrest Gump, Don Vito Corleone, Rick Blaine) most of us can relate to at least one of the characters and find authenticity in ‘all' of them. LOTR could never be as authentic because its issues, and characters are not realistic, and thus it could never be as powerful and ultimately as great as GoNY. I give this movie a 10 out of 10 and 4 stars because it deserves every little bit of positive criticism. This, in my opinion, is Martin Scorsese's most underrated epic motion picture, along with Casino, which is a must-see by the way, too. Gangs of New York is a great epic motion picture event and without doubt the best picture of 2002.
This is a perspective on anarchy.
posted on 02 Aug 2009Gangs of New York is a retrospective view of history, and events, which is actually extrapolated from anarchy and fascist style rule of the type that culminates with the formation of a modern Western democracy.It seems that Gangs of New York is meant to illustrate why democracy is important in that it brings about a civilised world, or at least purports to. But as we have not yet evolved to a fully fledged civilised world, - with only appearances of it - then perhaps the democratic process is not yet complete. Here in Gangs of New York democracy is finally and in the end implemented as a suppressant for the purpose of subtle means of subordination of socially excluded, poor, and disenfranchised people, by the bourgeoisie. Hence the reason why it is important to director Scorcese to juxtapose wealth and poverty to bring home this point. Indeed, those who are supporters of democracy are more likely to be the puppets of the rich who want to suppress the poor and use suffrage and the democratic process for their own ends and for their own gains. Until this happens, then the rich must support a dictator, as in the film's Bill the Butcher, and likewise as history highlights in Italian fascism and German Nazism.In this respect director Scorsese brings a depth to the film which suggests it needs to be very closely viewed. In order to do this one must detach ones self from other aspects of the film, such as acting, production etc.This said the production, to an extent is in the style of Sir David Lean's, with an extra nod towards his version of Dickens Oliver Twist fable, and to that extent Dickens himself.In fact the acknowledgement of Dicken's Oliver Twist in Gangs of New York comes from Decapprio's character, who like Oliver Twist becomes an orphan. Indeed, the murder of his dad by Bill the Butcher resulting in his being brought up in a harsh orphanage, -which Decapprio's character makes reference to in the film - is perhaps what actually makes Decapprio's character angry towards Bill the Butcher. Other reference points to Dicken's Oliver Twist come in the form of Diaz's character Jenny, who is an acknowledgement of Nancy, who in the novel has an intimate relationship with Bill Sykes. Likewise Jenny has a similar relationship with Bill the Butcher in the film, who is a newer revision and interpretation of Dicken's Bill Sykes.As for acting in this film, I think Decaprio's and Diaz's is undermined by their other none serious sugary roles in previous films. This colours the view of their acting ability, which is quite good, albeit not brilliant in this film. Decapprio needs more time to become a serious actor, and an elder statesman of film, which, as Gangs of New York illustrates he has the potential.A final point to make about this film is the highlighting of bigotry and misogyny, the latter I'm only sorry to say is only touched upon.In all, a film worth watching, but not absolute classical art.
It's a mesmerizing New York epic told in the best of filmmaking skills...
posted on 29 Jul 2009This film presents a combination of what makes a great film truly tick!
Solid depth, non-confusing ‘battle' scenes, wonderful cast of characters, great cinematography, and more important, a fabulous narration style that makes sense! And the flow of events is of a pacing that is commendable for supporting the character development and for telling the story.There are loads of violent takes... but hey, isn't this film supposed to reveal the events of that era's New York City streets? Aren't they supposed to be the pivotal points of the story? Surely, Scorsese does not mean to bombard the viewers with explosively visual imagination purely to stifle or shock one's nerves. The violence is actually splattered in Herbert Asbury's book of the same title! Amazing feat, I'm still awed by how Scorsese could condense such a thick book into a film and still maintains a true sense of the New York City of the 19th Century that was infested with so many corrupted gangs and tribes. What one sees is a chaotic urban city, not crowded by vehicles or building structures, but by human beings, fighting for power and running amok! This movie succeeds as a history lesson about New York City in its infancy stage. The flavor of its multi-cultures is well portrayed. The gist of Asbury's book is superbly treated. The development of the characters is well maintained. The themes of loyalty and vengeance flush out strongly in this film. Even the sub-plots are admirably introduced, almost as if they are the necessary spices added to enrich the main plot. Combined, they offer an in-depth understanding of the moods, the morals and the politics of New York in those days. A great cast of actors to captivate the audience! I actually didn't recognize Liam Neeson in his Father Vellon role. Daniel Day Lewis gives an incredible `butcher' performance... moving from a younger looking Billy, the leader of the Native Americans, to his `Butcher' - 16 years down the road. I thought the young lad who plays the little boy, Amsterdam, is a great choice. Try comparing his facial expressions with Leonardo DiCaprio's adult Amsterdam, and you'll know what I mean. I am not big on Dicaprio, but I really thought he does very well in presenting his character. Cameron Diaz is truly mesmerizing; she commands the viewers' attention, even if her role plunges into the story's sub-plots. There's great chemistry between her character and DiCaprio's. With Jim Broadbent's portrayal as the corrupt Mayor Tweed here, plus his corrupt Wackford Squeers in Nicholas Nickleby, I'd say he's incredibly apt to take on any ‘villain' roles of the earlier centuries. The dialogue works well with every character, leading the audience into the insights of historical events. The use of flashbacks is brilliantly done – it serves its phenomenal purpose of exposing the characters' feelings during those moments as well as spurring up recall-reflexes to account for the characters' past positions. The cinematic effects are astounding, never leaving the viewers with the feel of pretentious aestheticism. Instead, it allows the viewers to relive history in a manner that appears genuine. Take any of the ‘riots' or ‘fight' scenes, for instance, I couldn't bring myself to denounce the existence of those events. They look too real on screen to lack historical credibility. Watching those New York residents wielding their kitchen knives did leave me cold with fear. That's how awesomely realistic this movie is for me. John Carpenter's scores are so, so cool too! They actually cause my heart to beat dramatically in sync with them. This film is absolutely powerful and spectacular, the story folding beautifully with the characters. My favorite film for the year!
The only thing wrong was the script...
posted on 29 Jul 2009*May contain spoilage.*The movie "Gangs of New York" was a let down. Never have I ever been so confused as to the purpose of so many of the scene that would have looked ever so much better on the floor of the editing room.The story wonders around and concentrates on some characters that have no real purpose in the story. All in all, it was not a great movie, save your money.
Daniel Day-Lewis steals this movie
posted on 27 Jul 2009I never was a big Daniel Day-Lewis fan, but I must say, he gives a great performance in this movie. In fact, they should just hand over the Best Actor Oscar to him now instead of waiting until March 2003 to give it to him.Day-Lewis plays one of the greatest villains in movie history. Complex, dark, and some-what likeable, his portrayal of Bill the Butcher is the main reason to see this movie. Day-Lewis' acting is magnetic and powerful--and it draws you into the movie even more. You don't want him to lose; then again, you don't want him to win either. You are torn over this character and it is all because Day-Lewis does such an amazing job in making this character three-dimensional. Sometimes, the villains are the ones you want to root for (like Denzel Washington in Training Day).Martin Scorsese has created another classic to add to his already illustrious career. Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, and Jim Broadbent round out a great cast in a story about the roots of America's greatest city--New York.Gangs of New York shows that America was built on the blood, sweat, and tears of its people. Blood was spilled on the streets for many reasons: honor, money, and to force people to live and conform to a certain way of life. For years the blood-shed had no real purpose or direction, and then the politicians came and started to use these gangs to their advantage.Like in all of his films, Scorsese really doesn't try to preach at you. He shows you the events and allows you to make the decisions of right and wrong; good or bad. Before I saw this movie, I thought this was going to be another showdown-revenge movie between rival gangs. . .but in the end, I realized it was more than that.The biggest gang of them all was the United States government and the politicians. The government did the same things the local street gangs were doing--lie, cheat, and steal--but on a greater scale.Many people fear change and try to stand in the way of progress. But the movie shows that no one can stop change; and those who try to end progress are pushed aside into history.This movie gets my highest recommendation.
I really wanted to love this movie
posted on 19 Jul 2009What a letdown. I expected more from Scorsese and it wasn't on the screen. I've heard there is a longer cut of this movie and that might be worth giving a second chance but what I saw at the theatre left me cold. Saying that though, I give full credit to Daniel Day Lewis for turning in a truly fantastic performance. He was the only highlight of this movie.
west side story meets clockwork orange meets janice jackson's nasty boys.
posted on 17 Jul 2009only a wombat or a new york critic could possibly have his or her nose so far up st. martys keyster in order to make nice to this drek. its west side story meets clockwork orange meets janice jackson's nasty boys. save your lucre.
I Left the Theatre
posted on 13 Jul 2009To begin, let me say I'm a tremendous fan of Mr. Scorcese's work, and personally consider him one of the best directors of all directors.
However, when reviewing Gangs, one must forget he directed it, and look at it not as HIS WORK, but as a movie of its own. We can't be yes-men just because he's a great auteur.Yes, you read my title correctly. I and two fellow film-buff friends left this movie a little after halfway through. Looking at our watches, we decided we couldn't stand another hour and twenty minutes of this film.The film is overly graphic when it doesn't need to be, and seems to abandon its strong goals to tell a father-son story to be hip and edgy. Scorcese has always been a little edgy, and I think producer Weinstein may have had some say in the MTV-esqe cutting of this, a period drama(?). Toward the beginning, there's a crucial battle scene between the two warring "tribes" of an unruly section of New York. In this fight, the lens is splattered with blood, the carpeted snow can be seen curling up, and at times, people are cut without bleeding. Despite these mistakes, the battle is simply needlessly graphic, and almost campy. During one moment in which a long-nailed shrewish woman dives on a man, only to surface holding a bloody ear, my friend (unaware of Scorcese) said, "[This director's] a Peter Jackson wannabe," recalling Jackson's earlier work, Dead Alive (1992), the "goriest horror flick ever made". And while I admonished him for his ignorance, he had a point. The movie almost was a callback to Australian camp horror flicks.And what about the pointless, graphic nudity? Being a 17-year-old male, I am definitely not adverse to naked women, but there's a time and a place in films. I turned to my friends during a particularly violent part and said sarcastically, "What this movie needs is some gratuitous nudity." Voila!
Two minutes later, we were given a scene in a brothel, complete with dozens of topless women. During the scene, no dialog really suggested that this scene needed to take place in said location, but it did. Eh, it probably has a point I'm missing, right?Overall, give me your criticisms and your flak. After all, I only saw about half of the movie. What do I know? Maybe this ultraviolent, bland, techno-music sporting period piece is worthy of some Oscar nods. But honestly, mixing together Eyes Wide Shut, A Clockwork Orange, and Braveheart with a revenge story seems kind of horrid.FINAL RATING: 5 / 10P.S. Scorcese references his student film "A Close Shave" with the opening shot of a man shaving. Thought this might interest some.
Whew! Scorsese loves New York
posted on 28 Aug 2009I'm a history buff, and I am all for accurate recreations. Scorsese has always had the eye for detail - his Age of Innocence is amazing. To be honest, though, I'm not too familiar with his other films. I read the original book in preparation, and wondered how they could get this all into a film. Well, he did it. The written word was mind-boggling, but what Scorsese put on screen was some of the best time-travel (albeit shocking) I have ever experienced. Bravo, Scorsese! Thank you for this fabulous gift!