Gangs of New York

[Zero]

Like my friend said... "It was a good movie. If it had been 3 seperate movies". The movie is too ambitious and large. I guess another movie with too much budgets to spend... The ending is a pure classic example of that.

Maybe somebody can correct me but I don't recall the Navy coming to New York Harbor and blowing up the city with amount of bombardment power of Berlin and Tokyo in WW II.

It's braveheart meets hamlet meets New York Riot meets gangs meets romance meets dancing chinaman, jews and Irish folks ala bit of Moulin Rouge style.= Tada~ I present you, Gangs of New York~

[Dis]

I like a movie with a lot in it

I'm not sure about the bombardment power of the ships. In fact even though artillery existed back then, I didn't think ships would have that. I figured they just had cannons which fired in a straight line. But I may be compeltely wrong about that . But the bombardment of the city was kind of cheesy. But it did look cool

And I suppose the ending was kind of anti-climatic. So I'd imagine the ending might be disappointing to some. I was expecting a little more myself. But the entire movie up to the last 5 minutes is freaking awesome!! But maybe they could have done something different with the last 5 to 10 minutes.

And apparantly I'm the only one who like Lenardo DiCaprio. I think he is 50 times better than these other pretty boy actors who do the same types of films. At least Leo takes chances with his roles. But I do think there would have probably been a no name actor from Ireland who could have done the role better. Like I said I can believe Leo as a thief, but not as a brawler. Same with Cameron Diaz's character. They could have went to Ireland and picked someone up. But I guess they figured they needed a big name star to sell the movie.

I had no problem with the romance story. Although I was disappointed that with all the tits in the movie I didn't see Cameron Diaz's tits . At least this romance wasn't as cheesy as the one in Titanic.

Blood, Violence, Tits, Romance, knife throwing, riots, gang bangs, public sex, racial slurs , butchered animals, war, draft humour- I loved it all. I really don't think this movie had too much in it. It is a fabulous movie up until the final 5 minutes.

And I loved the part with the immigrants coming off the ship. They shoved the enlistment papers in their faces. Then he says "congratulations you're an american, now go fight for your country" I loved that boxing match too. That was funny as well.

[Ramo]

Excellent movie. De Caprio actually seemed to act competently. Amazing! .

It is a fabulous movie up until the final 5 minutes.

Agreed. There seemed to be shades of Titanic at the end.

[Ned]

I think the confused politics of the movie really spoiled it. The Butcher was pro-American. But he seemed just as much against conscrition as the Irish. Or maybe I just remember the movie wrong.

Further, it wasn't clear at all that it was the Irish who rioted. Nor was it clear why they did and why they went after the blacks.

Telling that story would have made the movie a lot better. Perhaps Scorsese did tell it, but cut it out during editing. In which case, the so-called directors cut will be a better movie.

Other than that, I thought that Daniel Day Lewis's performance as the Butcher deserved an academy award. He was the movie.

[Dis]

Yes I loved Daniel Day Lewis. He made the movie for me really. That is why I think so highly of it. The guy who played Tweed was also good. Leo and Cameron were so-so- they got the job done I suppose. Just nothind special.

I still think I will get this DVD. Especially if they release a director's cut with more scenes. I know it seems silly to love a movie just because of the visuals. I'm usually not that type of movie goer. I hate special effects for the most part. But I felt this movie just looked so good. And I love violence - so that was a plus. And perhaps a director's cut did involve more explanaion of the riots. My impression that it wasn't just the irish who rioted. But all the gangs rioted. This was the problem with the ending. They didn't fully explain Leo's role with the Irish gangs, and their overall involvement with the city wide riots. What I'm getting at was some of the events in the ending were overshadowed by all the other things going on in the movie. And it didn't fully explain the interconnections between all the events happening at the end.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ned

Other than that, I thought that Daniel Day Lewis's performance as the Butcher deserved an academy award. He was the movie.

How could anyone disagree?

[DanS]

This is a movie that is best seen after knowing the history of NYC--it's tough to go in cold. Even then, it's more of a "slice-of-life" movie than anything else. The whitey version of a Spike Lee joint.

For instance, knowing that there was a huge Irish immigrant riot during the Civil War, I was looking for it in the movie. Knowing the power of Boss Tweed's Tammany Hall political machine, I was looking for it in the movie. Without the allusions to those things, the movie would not have been too good for me.

The zany atmosphere of the movie seems sort of slapstick, but I'm guessing that this is the way it really was in real life.

I found the visual description to be right on the mark. It is said in my family that in 1843, my great great grandfather and family left NYC after only a year there, right off the boat from Germany. The story goes that he was working in a brewery, and found a dead body in a brewing vat.

After that, they were out of there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The story goes that he was working in a brewery, and found a dead body in a brewing vat.

That's how they make the special beer tastes, Dan .

[cavebear]

I wouldn't go to see the movie even if I lost a bet demanding I see it.

It has no historical accuracy in the details.

1. You see hundreds of people charging one another with axes, knives, and machetes. And the battles lasted for hours. Yet only a few people were killed (according to records). Get real... The way the gang battles were set up, thousands of people should have been killed.

2. That scene of a gunboat targeting the city turned me right off right as soon as I saw it. I just knew it never happened. I lost all potential interest right there.

Another fictional movie passing as historical drama that will mislead people for years to come! I'm so sick of "historical lie" movies I could spit nails.

[Shi Huangdi]

Dissident

"I agree with you on the sets. The movie looks beautiful (depite it being in the slums ). Visually this movie is stunning. This along with the LOTR movies are some of the best looking movies I have seen in many years."

Right, this movie did a really convicing job of making it seem like it was shot in 19th century New York.

"As a tough guy he probably didn't pull it off as well as some others could have. "

Right, he just didn't convince me of the gangster from the slums type of deal. I think in an attempt to keep up with the usual Hollywood good vs. evil deal they didn't want to make him look too much like a thug.

"I like a movie with a lot in it "

Ya, I heard complaints from other people too that the movie had too much, but I aprreciated the action.

"I'm not sure about the bombardment power of the ships. In fact even though artillery existed back then, I didn't think ships would have that. "

This was the Civil War already, I think they had ships with bombardment...

Ned

"I think the confused politics of the movie really spoiled it. The Butcher was pro-American. But he seemed just as much against conscrition as the Irish. Or maybe I just remember the movie wrong."

If you would have remember correctly, The Butcher was against the war and in the beginning threw a knife in a picture of Lincoln. The Butcher was against conscription because he didn't support the war as he was a racist, the Irish didn't like conscription because they were being drafted en masse and being sent off to die.

Dissident

"Yes I loved Daniel Day Lewis. He made the movie for me really. That is why I think so highly of it. The guy who played Tweed was also good. Leo and Cameron were so-so- they got the job done I suppose. Just nothind special. "

Daniel Day Lewis was indeed great. I though Diaz a good job too she really did convince me as a thief. Leo wasn't great, but I agree with you he did a good job.

DanS
For instance, knowing that there was a huge Irish immigrant riot during the Civil War, I was looking for it in the movie. Knowing the power of Boss Tweed's Tammany Hall political machine, I was looking for it in the movie. Without the allusions to those things, the movie would not have been too good for me.[/b]

My knowledge of NYC history wasn't that great at all and I still enjoyed the movie. I disagree that you need to know NYC history to enjoy the movie.

cavebear

"
It has no historical accuracy in the details."

Actually I understand Scorcese was consulted by a NYC history expert and the movie is pretty accurate.

"1. You see hundreds of people charging one another with axes, knives, and machetes. And the battles lasted for hours. Yet only a few people were killed (according to records). Get real... The way the gang battles were set up, thousands of people should have been killed."

So Hollywood exaggerated how fighting was done? Big Deal. The important thing to now is that there was fighting. It is not important we know the historical details of how gang warfare in the mid 19th century was conducted.

"2. That scene of a gunboat targeting the city turned me right off right as soon as I saw it. I just knew it never happened. I lost all potential interest right there. "

Again, exactly how the crushing of the riots took place is not very important. This isn't a historical documentary, this an entertainment movie set in a historical era. It isn't important we know if a gunboat was used or not, that the riot was crushed is sufficent.

"Another fictional movie passing as historical drama that will mislead people for years to come! I'm so sick of "historical lie" movies I could spit nails."

If you want history right go to the books. Most history buffs understand Hollywood is going to get everything perfect and they are able to enjoy the movie and appreciate the historical setting. I like history alot and thats what I do.

[Seneca]

I guess it's disappointing to see Scorsese get historical details wrong because he's usually so meticulous about these things.

If there's a song playing on the jukebox in a Scorsese film, you can bet that it was a hit in the exact month that the scene is taking place in...

[Dr Strangelove]

I'll get around to seeeing the movie some day so I didn't read the spoilers. If they have Boss Tweed around at the same time as the Civil War race riots then the movie is historically inacccurate I think. I think that Boss Tweed was a figure of the 1870s and 1880s.

[SlowwHand]

http://www.albany.edu/~dkw42/tweed.html

[Dr Strangelove]

Ah, so he was brought down in the late 1870s. I remembered the Thomas Nast cartoons were published in the 1870s.

[The Mad Viking]

Stupid, stupid, movie.
Technically, very well done.

Grossly exaggerated scenes that make the whole thing unbelievable.

Carcicature of a villain.

No exploration of what motivated people to hack and hacked to death.

No judgement, not even discourse, of the idealogy involved.

And then, the butcher has Leo helpless, and decides not to kill him, but to hideously maim him for life.

And in this movie where people are dissected like frog in a biology lab, what terrible act is maiming for life?

He gives him a little burn on his cheek. Which dissappears a few scenes later.