Cool News
GANGS OF NEW YORK Reviewers Rioting In The Streets!!
SPOILER ALERT !!
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
I’m actually glad that I can’t write about this film for another week, because I’m still chewing on it. One thing is certain... it’s worthy of great discussion, and is sure to be one of the lightning rods of controversy among film fans this season.
For now, let me hit you with some reviews that readers have been sending in over the last few days. First up is a long-absent TalkBacker, here today to offer up his views on Scorsese’s newest opus...
The DMFC has returned. I hope you have behaved in my absence. I braved the snow tonight - I braved icy roads darker than the racially-charged orcs of middle-earth...all to arrive at Gangs of New York and provide my faithful friends and lovers with a detailed review.
This isn't Raging Bull. This isn't Taxi Driver. This isn't Goodfellas. It's not even Casino. What it is, dear fanboys, is the closest Scorcese will ever come to directing a comic book movie.
Yes, you heard me right.
Forget best picture talk. In the opening scenes it's clear that we're in for something a little different than advertised. As Liam Neeson (in an effective cameo as Priest) leads Young Leo down the caverns of the old brewery, the sets seem more sci-fi than anything else. Really, in those opening moments, the movie looks and feels like Waterworld. Don't scoff. You'll see what I mean. When Hellcat Maggie, with daggers for fingers, leaps ten feet in the air and bites off a man's ear, you'll realize that this isn't Merchant-Ivory. It's Street Fighter 2.
And believe me, that's what you really want out of this movie. Some kick-ass action and cool characters. There's not much depth to be had, except a lame attempt in the end to tack on some 9/11 symbolism, which I didn't really get and I suppose I will wait for Richard Corliss to explain it for me.
Most Scorcese films have a main character you can attach yourself to. Leo is not one of them. His father was killed when he was a boy. He's still angry. That is the extent of his character development.
The film's other characters are far more compelling. Daniel Day Lewis is AWESOME as the Butcher and should become a fanboy icon. He will be nominated for an oscar and he will mostly deserve it. Cameron Diaz is passable, but like Leo, cannot seem to remember if she is from Ireland or Pasadena. Jim Broadbent is GREAT and John C. Reilly, while he plays a fairly two-dimensional heavy, is finally given a role where he doesn't need to be confused at all times (and if you think that's a shot at the overrated work of PT Anderson, it is. After seeing Punch-Drunk Love, I prefer the director of Mortal Kombat).
Brendan Gleeson is unfortunately saddled with the most predictable scene in the film. I won't ruin it - you'll see it coming anyway - but I'm referring to when he tries to reason with the Butcher. The Butcher shows mercy, Gleeson turns his back, and - WAIT, I can't ruin it for you!
The cinematography is great and really shines during the fight scenes. The opening battle between the Dead Rabbits and the Butcher is brutal and kinetic and stands with the best of Scorcese's visual achievements. As does a long tracking shot that traces immigrants getting off the boat and immediately being conscripted into the army. Unlike PT Anderson, Scorcese understands that trick shots should only be used in the service of the story and does so here with real gusto.
The film begins to unravel at the end with the depiction of the anti-draft riots. After nearly three hours of build-up for an eventual showdown between Leo and the Butcher, the movie completely shifts gears and decides that the final battle isn't as important as cannon balls smashing into buildings. The final confrontation is dropped in favor of noise, and when they finally get back to it, crucial momentum is lost. You'll fight to do more than shrug.
My biggest gripe is that the film plays with an interesting idea: a man dedicated to avenging his father's death inadvertantly becomes a son to the murderer. This storyline just falls away and one has to think that it was a product of an earlier draft. Perhaps Kenneth Lonergan. Wasn't You Can Count On Me great?
In conclusion, this is a problematic but enjoyable film. Those expecting greatness, look elsewhere. I fear that it will bomb at the box office. Perhaps it will force Marty to make that movie with Larry David.
I had call yesterday, I have call today, and I'll have call tomorrow!
DMFCOur next reviewer, Vallon’s Other Son, has also got a bit to say about the picture...
To cut right to the chase, “Gangs of New York” is very good. Sadly, for me, it stops short of great because of Leonardo DiCaprio. He just didn’t do it for me. But more on that later.
The opening is fucking awesome. It’s New York, 1846. More specifically, the Five Points. Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) is preparing for battle next to his young son. They pray so St. Michael. The young lad is in awe of his father. They walk through their hideout. People gather behind Priest and follow his lead. He stops at a door. Monk (Brendan Gleeson) stands next to it with a club in his hands. The crowd behind Priest is loud. Priest asks Monk if he is with them. Monk says yes as long as the price is right. Priest names the right price. And Monk kicks the door out and the snow-covered streets are dead silent. It really gets your adrenaline going.
Priest and his gang step outside and wait, weapons in hand, for their enemy. The enemy is the Natives, led by Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis). Bill hates the Irish. Actually, Bill hates everyone. He and Priest exchange a few words as their respective gangs face each other. Then all hell breaks loose.
The battle that follows reminded me of the ones in “Braveheart.” No guns. All hand-to-hand combat, up close and personal. Clubs and knives and swords. Blood gushes and limbs fly. It’s an extremely brutal, bloody and intense sequence. Very well done and exciting. Bill has his eyes (or eye, since one is glass) on Priest the entire time. Finally he reaches him and stabs him twice before Priest even has time to react. Then, at Priest’s request, and in front of his boy, Bill finishes him off and the battle is over.
Cut to 16 years later. The young boy is now a young man, Amsterdam (DiCaprio). He has spent the past 16 years in an orphanage and returns to the Five Points upon his release. He meets Johnny (Henry Thomas), whom he knew as a child. And soon he meets Bill, who has done quite well for himself. He’s partners of sorts with a politician named Tweed (Jim Broadbent) and controls virtually everything in the Five Points. People have to pay just to be in his presence.
Through Johnny, Amsterdam gets close to Bill. And Bill likes Amsterdam immediately. He sees a tough, smart young man and comes to call him his associate and apprentice. All the while, Amsterdam has plans to kill Bill (no Tarantino reference intended) at a celebration that’s coming up. It’s an annual party thrown in tribute to Priest’s death at Bill’s hands. As Amsterdam sees it, you don’t kill the king in private. You do it in front of everyone.
There’s also the matter of Jenny (Cameron Diaz), a pickpocket that takes a liking to Amsterdam. She was raised by Bill starting at age 12, following her mother’s death. Amsterdam tries to resist her at first, both because he fears she is involved with Bill and because she’s slept with most of the Five Points. But resistance is futile.
The movie spends a lot of time addressing racism and immigration. Two groups of people greet those coming off the boats. One group offers bread and something warm to drink while the other throws rocks. Bill and most of the authority figures hate immigrants, minorities and the poor. It’s also the year of the first draft, and that plus Lincoln and the Civil War come up frequently.
Technically, “Gangs of New York” is an amazing achievement, from Sandy Powell’s costume design to Dante Ferreti’s production design. It all looks remarkable. Scorsese and his collaborators do an outstanding job of transporting you to another time and place. Howard Shore’s music and Michael Ballhaus’ cinematography are also top-notch.
As the buzz has suggested, Day-Lewis owns this movie. It’s his show, and his return to the screen after five years could not be more welcome. Bill is smart, scary, merciless, funny, sadistic and a little insane all at the same time. He is as memorable a character as Hannibal Lecter. As far as villains go, they don’t get any better. Day-Lewis creates an entirely three-dimensional character and hits a grand slam. This is the definition of tour-de-force.
The supporting cast is also impressive. Neeson, Broadbent, Gleeson and the always-wonderful John C. Reilly (playing a dirty cop and former ally of Priest’s) are all excellent in smaller roles. Diaz looks great and holds her own while not being particularly memorable.
Unfortunately, Leo doesn’t cut it. I think he’s a good actor, especially in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape” and “This Boy’s Life.” But “Catch Me If You Can” looks like it features the better of the two Christmas offerings from DiCaprio. Day-Lewis (and Gleeson and Broadbent for that matter) acts circles around him. DiCaprio resorts to the same scowl too often and always looks like he’s trying too hard. Amsterdam never becomes someone you care about. We should be rooting for him to get his revenge, but this never happens. As a result, there is no emotional resonance. We’re rooting for the bad guy.
But it’s no use wishing for a better lead. Leo’s the one we got. And for the most part, “Gangs of New York” is pretty spectacular. It’s well paced (about two hours and forty-five minutes), Scorsese is in fine form, Day-Lewis gives one of the year’s best performances, it’s wondrous to look at and it’s always entertaining. Might not be quite good enough to be a Best Picture candidate, but at the least pretty damn close. Finally today, we’ve got Truthgame, our British spy who seems to have his hands in everything. He’s gone screening-mad as awards season kicks in, and he’s probably the most openly disappointed of our reviewers this morning. I’ll let him explain...
This is probably the most anticipated film of the year. We have had Spiderman and we have already been introduced to the world of middle earth. Gangs of New York is the only event film we have left this year that was made to and we “expect” and want it to inspire us and be everything great films can be. The only clue to this film qualities and failures is its release date… An entire year late.
Gangs of New York is not terrible. Just it’s not that good. With all the expectations one has of this film – you just want it to be great. There are great things in it. But as a whole – the film is not.
I came away from the screening feeling pissed off that such an opportunity has been wasted. An opportunity to create a world unseen by human eye in nearly 150 years. An opportunity to tell of an important part of US history at a time when America itself was at war with itself. To Tell a Love story with actors who we have enjoyed in similar roles. And there is simply not enough time in the 160 minutes to get fully intergraded with the many facets the film shows up and there are clear signs of brutal editing and a director perhaps even out of touch with his film – the tone and pacing alter drastically from scene to scene and there are huge holes in the plot that are missing.
The film opens with a bloody – but a censored battle. (many shots are missing 2 – 6 frames of bloody climax) A Catholic gang called The Dead Rabbits, representing the Irish population of New York are lead by Priest Vallon played Liam Neeson and they are fighting a Native gang lead by Bill The Butcher played by Daniel Day Lewis who although excellent – is not always in the same film as everyone else. The battle ends with Day Lewis killing Vallon and witnessed by his young son – Amsterdam. Bill then spares Amsterdam’s life but does order him to prison…
15 years later Amsterdam is release from prison and is bent on avenging his father’s death. Amsterdam joins a small group of petty criminals who all pay some of their earnings to Bill The Butcher who runs the area. We are in an area called the Five Points and this is where most of the story happens. De Caprio for reasons that are never fully explained or justified fall in with Bill the Butcher who takes him under his wing as a surrogate father of sorts. De Caprio also falls in love with Cameron Diaz which is probably the weakest plot point. It just doesn’t make sense that Cameron would or even could fall for De Caprio who we never actually see committing any crimes!
Where the film is great is in the detail. Just like Goodfellas, Casino and even Kundun to an extent Scorsese bombards you with information. We see each type of thief and get told their names… (too many to remember after one
screening) We have thieves that rob the rich by dressing up as the rich. We have thieves that steal from men as they sleep with whores. We have thieves who steal in church while everyone is praying.
We see the New York fire brigade. Answering a fire they come rushing in only to find a rival brigade has also been alerted. Instead of putting out the fire – they fight each other while the building burns. This would not have been popular if the film came out last Christmas as originally intended as September 11th was so close to all our memories and fireman were the natural hero’s of that time.
We see New York as teaming with different races, cultures and creeds. There are the Chinese who are mostly portrayed as either opera performers or owners of Opium dens… We have the Irish, the Germans, the English… All are poor and all have arrived in America trying to start a new life.
In the harbour we see coffins coming in on boats with the dead from the civil war in the south. We see immigrants coming off boats and signing papers making them Americans and then signing another paper which commits them to military service.
The whole thing is very political. Jim Broadbent plays a very corrupt politician who uses Bill The Butcher as an ally who controls the masses out of fear and ensuring his people vote accordingly. The irony is at the end when the masses rise in the Draft Riots of 1863 we realise that Bill The Butcher was playing the politicians just as much.
Each of these details are potentially films within themselves. We want to know more. We want to see more. But the action has already rushes ahead to another detail and for lack of better description – isn’t detailed enough.
Scorsese wants to take us into this world – but I think he has offered a trailer for perhaps a different version of the same film that lies back on an AVID as a much longer but obviously less commercially viable cut. I am reminded of Heavens Gate (a film I quite enjoy and as still overwhelmed by its beauty – Read “Final Cut” by Stephen Bach as a fantastic chronicle of the making of that film that bankrupted United Artists in 1980) I am not saying GONY is like Heavens Gate – but I can see the similarities in both scale, ambition and artistic success.
The first 90 minutes of the film are spent setting this up. It is only when De Caprio’s is portrayed and his identity is revealed does the film being the final confrontation between him and Day Lewis. All this is set against the backdrop of the 1883 draft riots.
In typical politician style, when De Caprio’s reformed Dead Rabbits rise against Bill The Butchers clan we have Jim Broadbent come in and make a deal offering money in exchange for votes. Of course Leo who has gone from petty
criminal to political leader in only a few short scenes wants an Irish candidate…
I don’t want to tell you the whole movie – I want you to see it for yourselves. I know most of you are passionate about films and regardless of what I or anyone else says – will be first in line to see it.
The casting is magnificent. Not only are there the 3 leads great marquee names and people of talent. But the entire secondary cast of 25 people was fantastic. We have Liam Neeson, Jim Broadbent, David Hemmings, John C Reilly, Henry Thomas, Stephen Graham and many, many more. That’s what a budget and package Gangs Of New York offered the acting world. They are all good. Just the problem I had is that they were all competing against the running time to get their stories and perspectives out. Most of them end up being thinly veiled clichés who project the stories political and social themes as opposed to characters who function with their own logic and sense of morality. This is not necessary the fault of the editor – but more the running time as the film has so much to say.
Leonardo De Caprio is a good actor. He was fantastic in What’s Easting Gilbert Grape and after the excellent Titanic made him a Box Office legend its become popular and easy to ridicule him. The Beach was not a great film – but far from a disaster… Here… he is not the clean cut Romantic lead… Sadly nor is he believable as a leader of the reformed gang. This is quite a problem. His accent flanders throughout the film. In voice over he comes across as Irish and then English and at one point he sounds like he’s high on drugs as his words slur to much…
Daniel Day Lewis is a fantastic actor who when works – which is rarely - he doesn’t act – but “becomes.” I think that’s joy he finds is the process and the total submergence in a character. In this film he plays a very charismatic leader who is totally believable as both a gang leader with echo’s to an old mob boss from the Godfather as he does look after his own. The problem is his acting is so dynamic and entertaining and with so many brilliant lines and delivery that we end being distracted by his performance.
Cameron Diaz has the weakest role of the 3 leads. Her character has a couple of points
There is casual violence, which is disturbing. One key character had a forced abortion, which leads her to have a horrible scar going down her belly. But in other scenes when Jim Broadbent requests an execution just for the sake of an execution we see the condemned men acting not with terror and dread but with good natured tones. This is very bewildering and takes the audience out of the mood the film tries so hard to evoke.
The Music in this film is terrible. We are presented with composed music from Elmer Bernstein, period songs of the day and the obligatory U2 track as this is an Irish story!
Music in a Scorsese film is always pivotal and he has great success using music to amplify his points of time and story. Here however he fails. He tries – but he fails. The music here is at best distracting and at worst just laughable. Several times in to the film I though I was watching a musical as characters (not lead actors thank god) sing on screen to music played on the soundtrack… This technique is brave but fails.
The Camera work on this film is competent but not excellent – not at all Scorsese’s best nor award winning. Michael Ballaus has created a muted world and quite realistic. It is not a stylised world which although appropriate for the milieu is still a little disappointing coming from Scorsese. There are no stand out shots like the Cococaba steadicam shot in Goodfellas or the overhead shot at the end of Taxi Driver. We have lots of crane shots – including the obligatory crane pullbacks that reveal the sets in their entirety – but no shots of any note and NONE that inspire.
Dante Ferreti has created 1860’s New York city on film. To create the look most of what you see was built on a studio backlot with subtle digital work to fill out the few backgrounds that go beyond the 3 story buildings and “Paradise Square” set that we spend so much time in. It all looks good. The props seem appropriate and the scale is there. A huge amount of time and money was spent creating the “Five Points” set – in fact they build and shot the film in Italy as it was most financially viable and the famed Production Designer heralds from that country. I just never felt a real sense of location. Everything looks real and was build and dressed to the highest standards by some of the best practitioners of the craft… Just it never seemed to be anything more than just the backlot… We have the main
“Paradise Square,” A harbour set and a few square blocks of streets. Interior work was competent but never great.
Scorsese for his technical virtuosity and finesse has never been a great practitioner of digital effects. They are often badly structured and probably cost more money than they should. And most frustratingly the digital matte paintings and composite work that went into them doesn’t look believable when we’ve seen these effects successfully completed on so many other films with much smaller budgets.
The editing by Scorsese’s regular editor Thelma Schoonmaker is not full of Scorsese tricks but still has many… like rapid dissolves to get close to the action, there’s even a horrible freeze frame during the first battle. Just the film has so much to say and the editing struggles to focus on one story… This brings this review round to most important point which is the question of how much interference was there in Post Production by Harvey “Scissorhands” or was he trying to deliver a financially viable film with a more cinema friendly running time. Whatever the answers are – the blame lies ALL in the script. I’ve never read the shooting script nor any drafts during its development phase – but there was such a longer, more detailed, more captivating and more satisfying story in the script – it just wasn’t in the film. Either the script was too long, or Scorsese shot too much (I am curious to learn who or what caused the film to go 4 months over schedule) Either way both the director and producers should have known the problems before shooting.
Somewhere in what I saw was a fantastic film. It was all there. The environment. The story, the intrigue and politics. There was room for a love story too – just none of it quite worked and that for me is very, very sad.
Big Spoiler Here
The film ends on showing New York skyline through the ages. We go from 1860’s skyline to the arrival of the first skyscrapers through to the image of New York with the World Trade Centre towers in the background. I am glad they used that image, as that is how New York deserves to be seen. t’s a good shot… and does summarise the film as I found it quite arrogant to think that ALL of New York owes itself to barbaric events 150 years ago…
Spoiler End
This is a big film. On every level… Just its success doesn’t justify its ambition.
Keep on seeing them – even when they’re bad…
TruthgameYou’ll see for yourself on December 20th, when this rolls out in theaters with that new KILL BILL trailer attached to the front. Sounds like the geek nation’s gettin’ an early Christmas present to meeeeeeee...
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
Their accents are meant to change from Irish to American. Remember, these guys have lived in New York for some time, and so the actors were coached by the dialect dude to have an Irish/American hybrid accent. They haven't just stepped off the boat. This film should have Roy Keane in it.
-
Shame that it's not show floating these guys boats, but I'm still willing to give Scorsese the benefit of the doubt here. I'll be in line for this one.
-
Point of views. Three completely different reviews on just one movie. I'm thinking that "Raging Bull" was Scorsese's best, IMO. And then "Taxi Driver", "Goodfellas" and all the rest. Perhaps GONY was "too" ambitious?
-
Except with the rare occasion, this movie was doomed to fall short of expectations. Too much changing shit and so forth. I just hope I don't look at my watch during it. THEN it will be worth my 6.25.
Martin's time is running short to relive some of his former sucesses. -
...about the success of this film, and these reviews solidify my opinion that the movie is simply not good. Sorry to anyone looking forward to it - I was too! But I've gotten the feeling since the trailers began that the film is shoddy at best, and now here we have 2 negative reviews trying really hard to be positive because they had such high hopes. I'll rent it.
-
My favorite part is when Daniel-Day Lewis flies toward DiCaprio in a spinning Psycho Crusher, whereon DiCaprio busts a Shoryuken in his ass. Sweet. sk
-
If it won
-
Even if Gangs is a disappointment (the jury's still out), I think Scorsese is due an Oscar so badly it's not even funny. Let me put it this way: can anyone remember, 12 years down the line, ANYTHING about Dances With Wolves? Whereas GoodFellas is now part of the culture (let's face it, the Sopranos would not exist without it). I know Ordinary People has its partisans, but is it really better than Raging Bull? And don't even get me started on Rocky vs. Taxi Driver.
I always tell myself that Hitchcock never won an Oscar, and that Citizen Kane got the shaft, but the fact is that the average joe looks at the Oscars as the definitive word on the best that movies have to offer. And it would hurt me to know that Scorsese is not considered "good enough" for that. -
it's true, sorry to say it, but it is. i'd take: carpenter; anderson (both paul and wes); stone; tarantino; solondz; lebute; payne and jonze. any of them have more to offer than the same script with the same protagonist; goign through the same dilema. -sl-
-
Dec 10, 2002 10:18:39 AM CST
"This is probably the most anticipated film of the year..."
by vindibudd
Except for The Two Towers.
-
There is so much complaining about GONY's lenght and we know Marty needs space to tell his stories. With such an ambitious film, his dream project, we all should let him tell what he wants and how long he wants. P.T. Anderson is allowed to tell longer than 3 hours, why not his Master.
-
I don't get the fuss at all. I don't find it to be great or a classic. I think Raging Bull, the King of Comedy, Mean Streets and Goodfellas are so much better then Taxi Driver.
-
Dec 10, 2002 11:04:48 AM CST
"Gangs of Coruscant" OR... No Saliva in Trailer Soundtrack, No H
by jollydwarf
Hey, you gotta do what you gotta do to pull in the Freddie Durst Fuckfaces! Click, click, BOOM!!! How can a movie that's taken this long NOT disappoint the faithful? Given a Leo Double Feature, I'd rather sit through "Catch Me If You Can". At least it seems like straight-ahead fun, as opposed to something that looks like they're going to break out into a "West Side Story" musical faceoff at any moment. By the way, was this movie the key thing that held Leo up from taking the Anakin role for Ep. II and III? I mean, a shitty script couldn't've helped, but I still really believe that Lucas wanted to go with the "Titanic" factor to get more of the kiddies and soccer moms to go. Instead, he had to scramble with Operation Unknown. But these movies are all consolation prizes this December, anyway. They know, they know. "The doors are barred. We cannot get out. They are coming..."
-
I agree that Scorsese is due but don't put down DANCES to prove your point. That was a great film and one that I will certainly remember for all time. Kill Bill trailer on the sum'batch?!?! I'm all over it!
-
Dec 10, 2002 11:36:41 AM CST
Ok, so now Martin Scorsese is overrated. wtf. contrarianism shou
by shiva
Seriously, why the fuck must a 100% pure movie god be insulted on a movie site just so that someone can feel good about himself?
-
Damn, I had high hopes for this movie. I'm gonna sit it out the first few weeks. If it's a great movie, it will still be great when I see it later on. Wasn't it bad enough that Weinstein inflictd Gwenneth Paltrow on the unsuspecting world?
-
If the movie's been tinkered with, it's Weinstein, not the Disney execs. Disney didn't mess with Kundun or Bringing Out The Dead (although they didn't market them for crap).
Miramax is pretty lousy to its directors. They cut up 54 (not a great movie in any form, but they still trashed it), they tried to make Lord of The Rings as one movie, and they dumped Dogma (for some reason, Kevin Smith forgave them). When are people going to realize that Miramax is *not* the future of indie movies? -
I just have to say that. I don't care what anybody else says, I thought it was a great movie. Age of Innocence *was* underrated, although I will give you Casino as a disappointment.
-
Dec 10, 2002 11:48:26 AM CST
And George the ninth water buffalo can suck my pustulated dick.
by shiva
Comparing Goodfellas to Casino rather than allowing it to stand for itself. Hey, if we went by that logic The Searchers is a rip off of every western that Ford made before. AArrgghhhh....
-
The tone of this film seriously worries me. Why? Because it doesn't appear to take itself seriously. Is this not based on historical fact? Why then, does the trailer for TTT feel more realistic? Years ago, when details of this project starting leaking out, I was extremely excited. What an opporturity for enligtenment! Who else, but Scorcese possessed not only the directing skill, but also the love and desire to resurrect 1846 New York? The subsequent casting of Leo did nothing for me. I've never much liked the man that looks like a boy, but actors can surprise you. Performers can mature, even if their bodies can not. What can one say about Daniel Day-Lewis? Even mentioning the fact that Robert DeNiro was the front runner for the Butcher character is enough to make me cringe. Try and forget the fact that Bobby DeNiro has practically raised you and try and imagine him in the place of Day-Lewis. I praised the film gods when I heard that Daniel had given up life in the shire for a bit more adventure. When the rest of the amazing character actors were inked, I was nearly tickled pink! Then I saw the first, of many, trailer and numerous commmerical spots. Or at least that's what I thought until I started seeing the plethora of trailers/commercial spots. That's the tone Scorcese had in mind for this project? Cheap thrills over genuine chills? I thought this was supposed to feel gritty and real? I was hoping to see a recreation of New York's most infamous gangs, and their origins; not another manipulative, revenge- driven narrative with three (obvious) acts and an obligatory love story for the ladies! Is this supposed to be easy viewing? What kind of "target audience" were they expecting? The more I read and see of GONY, the more questions I begin to ask myself and others, but perhaps the film DOES WORK! Perhaps the cartoony, over-the-top tone of the film, as described by many a reviewer, works with the proper mindset. Maybe Scorcese intended to make the first historical epic for "fan boys." Or maybe anybody telling them self that has officially graduated from the Starwars school of denial and has completely lost their ability to ascertain greatness. I guess we'll all find out where we stand on this and many other issues soon enough. Thanks for tuning in! This is Double Helix, signing out.
-
Why do you hate Paltrow? Just curious.
-
I was uneasy about wanting to see this movie. In fact the first reviewer's remark about the director of Mortal Kombat will probably lead to a gang-type assault on his person from P.T. Anderson's supporters. I don't like DiCrapio, and I think I'll mainly see this for the rest of the cast. The same holds true for Catch Me If You Can. And you're telling me that Leo's character doesn't seem to have much chemistry with Cameron Diaz?
Does he need Viagra or is it something else? -
I just think that Gwenneth Paltrow has no discernible talent that I can see. Full stop.
-
I'm about halfway through the book The Gangs of New York, and I can definitely see what attracted Scorsese to the project. Nearly every page suggests a possible topic for a movie, it's extremely dense. (The Draft Riots, which apparently makes up a big part of the movie, takes up only two chapters in Asbury's book). But there isn't really a narrative to the book, at least one that would make a movie. What's good about the book is that it makes a strong case for the origins of the city being in this era of conflict (and it destroys the notion that NYC was somehow "civilized" when the rest of the country was still wild.)
One thing I'm concerned that Scorsese won't address is the racism of the time. The racial situation was very complex (blacks and Irish were both second-class citizens, but the Irish turned on the blacks during the Draft Riots). I hope Scorsese doesn't romanticize the Irish the way Cameron did in Titanic.
-
Hmmm...I see. Granted, I think she seems like a pretentious, self-loving bitch in reality. She makes me sick in interviews, so smarmy and smug. but I think she's a pretty talented actress. Not as great as, say, Allison Lohmann or Samantha Morton, but quite good nonetheless. I really like her in Talented Mr. Ripley and Seven. But to each his own.
-
From what I've seen of the movie, Scorcese doesn't seem to be going for a strictly "realistic" tone; I get a stylized, Charles Dickens meets "Clockwork Orange" kind of vibe from the previews. I'm going into the movie with moderated expectations.
-
Minus the cgi, props, and special effects, Titanic was a very lame, humdrum film. The love story, the supposed drive of the movie, was one of the most generic things ever laid down to script. I stand by my belief that the sole reason Titanic made as much money as it did was repeat viewings by teenage girls and whomever they happened to drag to those viewings. Again, just my opinion. But I stand firmly behind it. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Cheers.
-
Dec 10, 2002 12:18:43 PM CST
Am I the only one who doesn't think Catch Me If You Can is a sur
by dplatt
Spielberg hasn't exactly been on a hot streak. A.I. is widely considered a failure (although I personally loved it), and Minority Report didn't do nearly as good as a Spielberg/Cruise collaboration shouild have (again, regardless of the fact that it was a good movie). Spielberg hasn't exactly lost his touch, but he's not the draw he was in the 80s.
BTW, I hate to make this tired point again, but Leo's been in a period piece movie with script problems and multiple delays before, and it turned out alright. -
No, I completely agree with you. I would even go so far as to say the movie sucks balls. It looks ridiculous, actually. Speilberg, like DeNiro, has become a parody of himself. He's so busy destroying all his hard work in the 70's and completely dominating the studio system (which destroys the possibility of quality films and forces a fledgling company like Digital Fantastique, which has possibility and promise, to resort to tiny budgets and little if any publicity), that he's forgotten how to make a quality movie. In fact, recently he stinks. I have no intention of ditching 10 bucks at the theater for a movie that is guaranteed to rot. I will rent it. Speilberg needs to sit back and consider what he has done to his own talent and to the motion-picture industry as a whole. Where is it going? Back to the days when actors were traded for sexual favors and film quality didn't count for a damn? It looks like it to me. So, in answer to your question, Catch Me if you Can will stink (though I hope I'm wrong and Speilberg turns out a winner for the first time in years.) Now I will await the hate mail.
-
It's true, it's true.
-
I never read Asbury's "Gangs of New York," but I am Familiar with his work. It is on my reading list for the winter holidays. Will this movie do well? That is a very ambiguous question depending on how you define well. Will it make a profit? We all should be more than well aware of the multiple entry bookkeeping that is practiced in Hollyweird. I am still surprised that an article published as fact EW stated that Batman - which grossed almost $300 million - did not make money. But major studios are corporations, in the business of staying in business, and major accounting at a large publicly traded corporation has come under scrutiny of late. *** The other costume drama that he was involved in that went over time and budget was also marketed so relentlessly that we could not get away from it. I still shudder every time I hear Celine Dion. It was an orgy of CGI and other visual effects, with a cheesy love story and Kate winslet's tits thrown in to round out the mix. *** Persoanlly, I have no interest in seeing this movie. Its just not that compelling for me. If I want to read an account of the History of New York, I'll go read some books or look for a few documentaries, and then try to cross check those facts myself. *** Martin Scorcese is NOT a God. Not all of his movies are great. Not all of his movies are entertaining, either. "The Sopranos" owes as much to the B&W Series "The Untouchables" as it does to "Goodfellas" or "The Godfather," or any other 'mob' movie or TV series that has come out before it. *** For me, "Catch Me If You Can" looks far more entertaining.
-
That's less than half a second, how does the reviewer know that things are missing? weirdness.
-
Let the flame wars begin.
-
NO no no, you're misunderstanding me. I'm referring to Mr. Speilberg's attempt in the 70's to override the studio system, along with Marty and Francis and Peter and all the rest. The attempt ultimately failed, due mostly to Speilberg, who now RUNS the studio system. See what I mean? There is no room for auteurs. The major studios veto pretty much every attempt at auteurism, which a few exceptions.
-
Dec 10, 2002 1:11:19 PM CST
I preffered the porno adaptation, "Gang-Bangs of New York".
by neofromthematrix
The Cameron Diaz lookalike (Anita Cock) was a total babe, but I thought that the 19th century rim-job scene was somewhat superfluous. And why did they get a sixteen year-old girl to play the role of DiCaprio? Anyway, I give "Gang-Bangs of New York", by director Martin Scores-Easy, four and a half dildos. - I know Kung Fu.
-
How annoying.
-
But Spielberg certainly profits from the studio system, and is certainly the most influential and powerful dwelling among its dark and dingy corridors, so I place a majority of the blame on him.
-
Dec 10, 2002 2:35:20 PM CST
This film deserves a chance, and by the way, CASINO rocked
by general woundwor
I'm going to see this and give it a chance - god knows Scorsese's earned it, with all of the great films he's given me over the years. A director's cut? That depends on whether Scorsese thinks it would genuinely benefit the movie - he strikes me as someone who understands the difficult trade-off between making the films he wants to and getting studio funds (just watch how eloquently he talks about this conundrum on the incredible documentary A PERSONAL JOURNEY THROUGH AMERICAN MOVIES WITH MARTIN SCORSESE). As far as I know, there's only ever been a 'director's cut' release of one Scorsese movie, and that's NEW YORK NEW YORK - but by all accounts, that was a chaotic, cash-bloated, coke-fuelled shoot and edit (hey, weren't the 70s great?), so he deserved a second crack at it. With GANGS OF NEW YORK, it really depends on whether Weinstein was just doing his job as a commercial producer, or being as much of an asshole about the whole thing as is rumoured. And guys, Miramax hasn't been a hub of indie filmmaking since it turned Oscar whore in the mid-90s, so get real - only Tarantino gets the royal treatment from them now. I really don't understand the TalkBackers who say Scorses is overrated. I own and love all of his highly regarded 'canon' - MEAN STREETS, TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL and GOODFELLAS - but I also love a lot of his other movies. CASINO was an amazing storytelling achievement, and in some ways I prefer it even to GOODFELLAS. The thing is, it's a film about really unpleasant people whose behaviour just gets more and more repulsive as the film goes on, which is very brave of Scorsese, but hard to stomach. Hell, I even liked BRINGING OUT THE DEAD. Have you ever wondered what goes through the mind of an overworked paramedic who spends every day dealing with horrible injuries and the drug-addicted poor, with many of his patients dying on him in front of their families? No, nor had I - again, a hard film to stomach, but a good one. I don't get all of the Spielberg-bashing, either - Spielberg may lack the box office clout he once had, but in artistic terms, he's in the prime of his life. I thought that A.I. (yes, including the ending) and MINORITY REPORT were two of the best films he's made.
-
It's only by accident that they've ever managed to put out a good film. They mangle everything they get their hands on. Also, I'll try to stay optimistic, but I think GONY will end up being a disappointment. It feels unfocused in the trailers, which is never a good sign. It WILL flop at the box office, no question about it. *** Spielberg bites as well. He's ham and eggs.
-
Just saw CASINO again. Holy jumping crack ho's that is one of Scorsese's best ever. Lush, detailed, intense, melodramatic and baroque. And what about the BEACH... underrated... that movie was like a creepy fable of "paradise" lost. DiCaprio was perfect as the thick headed American tourist with delusions of spiritual awareness.
-
...should leave out "The Last Waltz."
-
..."Sopranos" creator David Chase admits that the show wouldn't be here were it not for "Goodfellas". He refers to "Goodfellas" as his Koran (sp?)
-
The last thing I want to see if I pay for a movie is that childish boy with non-acting!
But wait, there's one good movie he made: Gilbert Grape. Not much to act if you play yourself ;-) -
..cuz all I saw was 3 hours of close ups on Robbie Robertson, singing powerfully into a switched off mike. Ronnie Hawkins saw it and told Levon Helm the immortal line: "Hey, son, don't look so glum. The goddamn movie'd be awright if it only had some more shots of Robbie. Haw haw haw haw!"
-
I really hope you are joking with that link you added.
-
here in london people set fire to plastic bins (you yanks call it trash). I'm looking forward to the makers of trainspotting turning this one into a real BRITISH block buster)
-
do these fanboy jerk reviewers have to curse in their reviews? "fucking awesome"?
take an english class -
The Last Waltz is under two hours and Robertson sings no lead vocals. He is one of the coolest looking guitarist ever and a great raconteur, but all of the players and guests get quite a bit of screen time. I don't know what movie you saw. Did you not notice the way Danko was framed during 'It Makes No Difference', or Helm on 'Old Dixie'? What about Garth Hudson talking about street musicians in New York?
-
Helm got his fair share of closeups. He did sing most of the songs, after all. And the lead guitarist is going to get more closeups than the guy behind the drum kit most of the time. I'm just saying, "Last Waltz" is the best concert movie ever made and should be mentioned in any Scorsese discussion.
-
It's a shame more people aren't familiar with that brilliant film, one of the best of the eighties.
-
In my opinion, the best film that Marty has ever made is King of Comedy.
The 1st trailer for GONY, was terrible and when I heard the accents of Cam and Leo. I exploded into hysterics. The fact that MiraHacks delay/bury this film shows you how awful a film it must be.
I will see it in Ireland in Jan(Jan 10th, is the opening day for us europeans)
I'll get back to ya.
-
Okay, you Spielberg detractors, lets set the record straight: Minority Report made over 300 million worlwide, generally the critics loved it (93% positive at Rotten Tomatoes). Box office-wise, it wasn't a gargantum hit, however, considering how dark and ambitious it was, how could it be otherwise? A.I. is made over 250 million worldwide, and a lot of critics loved the film (74% positive on Rotten Tomatoes). It'll undoubtedly be debated for years and years to come. These films are failures? Get your head out of your asses, okay?
-
If you could read, you would know that I never said Spielberg's movies aren't doing well at the box office. As a matter of fact, I said the opposite, if you think about it. I said that Spielberg controls the studio system which he played a part in reducing in the 70's.
-
How someone can appreciate our greatest living director (Scorsese) and bash the closest thing to him in the latest generation of filmmakers (PT Anderson) is completely beyond me. No other filmmaker working today takes as many risks (not even Martin Scorsese himself) with so much success as Anderson. I feel that it may not be long until we are calling Paul Thomas Anderson our greatest living director. Think about it: Scorsese made three GREAT movies over three decades (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas). Although we shall see how they hold up with the passage of time, Anderson made three GREAT films in a ROW(Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love). Can't wait for Gangs of New York, by the way. Ought to be pretty fun if not pretty great.
-
When a movie is delayed as long as this one the odds increase that it's a stinker (ie. Pluto Nash, Knockaround Guys, etc.). I've read that part of the delays were due to respect for 9/11, however, it's obvious that there are other mitigating circumstances. I'll see it, of course, but it's hard not to have some kind of high expectations when seeing a Scorsese movie.
-
Dec 10, 2002 6:01:52 PM CST
Spielberg tried to dismantle Hollywood in the 70's? This is simp
by shiva
He's never been anything but a Company Man. Not that that's bad. Hitchcock, Minnelli, Sirk and Anthony Mann all worked within the system to create masterpieces. What I cannot fuckin' understand is the complete lack of respect that Spielberg is treated with. How can you say with a straight face that he has no talent? Or that AI is the most astounding work of science fiction in the last 30 years. Or that Minority Report is one of the great masterworks of film noir. The complaint that Minority Report falls apart at the end is slightly suspect, imho. Let me quote somebody on David Poland's watch ' Spielberg allows you to read the end of the film as a John's halo sleep; you have the DVD, so check out the scene when they drop him into his little cylindrical cocoon. He descends corpse-like into the ground, his halo lights up ... and we cut to his wife in his boss's office, where his boss makes the Freudian slip that proves his undoing.
Is it signaled as a dream ending? At best, it's ambiguous, which is the perfect note for the ending to strike. That moment when the halo lights up is the turning point in the movie's portrayal of the universe from unjust to just -- certainly that's the dream of a betrayed lawman. What Spielberg gave us was perfectly measured to play both ways, and if most people didn't get it (and didn't like Minority Report's ending), then you could read it as kind of a kiss-off from the director to those who wailed about the ending to A.I.
For those who wanted MR to have a dark ending -
Dec 10, 2002 6:11:48 PM CST
If Paul Thomas Anderson has made three consecutive great films i
by shiva
I don't think that simply ripping off Scorsese (Goodfellas, Raging Bull-Boogie Nights) and Altman (Short Cuts-Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love-Popeye, California Split-Hard Eight), Demme (Something Wilder-Punch Drunk Love) and various scenes in I Am Cuba constitutes 'great' or even good film making. But I'll allow you that pleasure if you stop comparing a relative novice to a master.
-
I agree that $300 million is not a failure, and I *liked* Minority Report, but let's face it: Cruise or Spielberg on their own could gross $300 million worldwide in their sleep. Even five years ago, a Cruise/Spielberg teamup would have guaranteed one of the biggest movies of all time. By comparison, Minority Report was disappointment, and it tells me that Spielberg just isn't packing them in the way he used to. (Heck, even E.T. didn't do nearly as good as the Star Wars re-release)
Don't get me wrong: I *like* the post-Private Ryan Spielberg better than his sentimental 80s stuff. But Catch Me If You can looks like a tossoff, something that was probably more fun to make than to watch. -
.......But isn't this Talkback about Gangs of New York? As someone mentioned, Scorcese has a shitload of great movies behind him, and no, I don't want this to be Goodfellas, one of those already exists. I'm in the queue already!!
-
is ham and eggs. You can't deny it. Well you can, but it's still true. I'd rather watch Stone Cold then Saving Private Ryan. Hell, give me Near Dark over Schindlers List or AI or Minority Report. Hell, I'd rather watch Bio-Dome than AI.
-
I agree that Minority Report could be perceived as a disappointment, considering box office receipts. But you have to look at the movie itself: its not a typical summer feel good movie. I'm pretty sure that Catch Me If You Can will be the big hit most expect from a Spielberg film. Also, don't count out Catch Me If You Can, yet...the buzz is good, and I've read three reviews on it that say it represents Spielberg at the top of his game, or whatever that means. Just because it looks light light-fare, doesn't mean anything. Sometimes the best films are light-fare; just look at the work of Howard Hawks and Preston Sturges. This film could be along those lines, you never know. Just give it a chance.
-
I love Scorsese. I always make it an event whenever a film of his comes out to the theaters. Yet, I must confess...he's no longer hungry as a filmmaker. The last film he ever made that truely came from his gut was the masterpiece Last Temptation of Christ. That was it for him. And, from Goodfellas on, it's no longer a personal, religious experience for him to makes movies. He got it out of his system before the nineties began. I think Goodfellas is a great, joyful piece of cinema, yet its somewhat impersonal, just like every film he's made since then. The drive and passion is gone. And all thats left is the joy of workmanship. And there's nothing wrong with that. Yet, we'll never see another Taxi Driver, or Raging Bull, or Mean Streets...it's no longer in him. That's not a shame, though. Like I said, I love Goodfellas and Bringing Out the Dead, and most of Kundun. Anyway, I'm still really looking foward to Gangs of New York.
Peace -
I'll give Catch Me If You Can a chance if you give Gangs a chance. All I'm saying is that people are claiming, in a battle of Gangs vs. Catch Me If You Can, that Catch Me If You Can would win out. I'm not so sure.
I am well aware of the genius of Howard Hawks' comedies: His Girl Friday is one of my favourites. But the first time Spielberg attempted comedy, it was 1941, which I know has some partisans but I personally found close to unwatchable.
I guess I'm saying that Spielberg does not *guarantee* boffo box office or quality. Just as Scorsese doesn't. But Scorsese is more of a sentimental favourite for me, because, damnit, he should already have at least 3 Oscars. -
At least he's not some self-aggrandized, wooden acting, "Sexiest Pompous Ass Alive" that prances around in a red leather suit passing out million dollar rocks to some Latin tart. Leo's got perfect skin.
-
A Street Fighter 2 reference in a review? O_o; Come on, this movie isn't that outlandish now, is it? *sigh* Now I must see, just to see the action. Perhaps it's like Brotherhood of the Wolf?... I can only wonder.
-
Dec 10, 2002 9:02:21 PM CST
For those who remain unawares, none of Bernstein's music is left
by nazismasher
Elmer Bernstein's score was entirely rejected by Scorsese, who opted toward a collection of 'source music' as one publication put it. Howard Shore was then offered to license an undebuted concert piece he had previously written, "Brooklyn Heights", as the central contribution to the film's reworked 'score'. Scorsese is one of the great filmmakers of all time, and for me, that is still worth the price of admission. I have no doubt this will be a film to be seen just because of its pedigree, but increasingly, it's not looking like the great film I was hoping to see - more like an equal mix of lesser and greater parts. I'll have to see for myself, ultimately. Daniel Day Lewis's performance is the one unequivocally brilliant part highlighted in every review I've seen so far, and that at least looks promising.
-
Way to fall back on the tired-ass "Anderson is ripping off Altman, Demme, and Scorsese," argument. OF COURSE he is strongly influenced by other directors before him. It has been cool to have strong influences from the past masters ever since the seventies when Scorsese looked to Kazan, Lucas looked to Kurosawa, De Palma looked to Hitchcock, and Spielberg looked to Ford. Altman and Scorsese are getting up there in their years. Do you honestly want there to be no one trying out their themes and styles when they pass? No one to carry their torch? Besides, since it is going to get ripped off anyways, why not have it be jacked by a pro like PTA?
-
Yep, 6 frames is a quarter of a second and 2 frames is ummmm... a third of that. I guess the reviewer has a really good eye, eh? "Apart from that there's no connection?" Frija, that's the point. He IS New York (even though the Butcher mocks the name and proclaims himself as New York at one point).
-
kung-fu in the movie? Best of luck to Mr. Scorsese.
-
Dec 11, 2002 1:19:53 AM CST
Scorsese should direct Grand Theft Auto or Mortal Kombat Deadly
by fd resurrected
Directing movies based on video games sounds good...mebbe. Can't wait for GONY. Rolling Stones' Peter Travers declared it the best movie of the year.
-
but I absolutely hated 'Raging Bull'..."Best movie of the 80's"?? My hairy red ass! I agree with the poster that said that MS is overated...Maybe this is Chimmy's inner child talking but I think that Raging Bull would have been ten times better if it starred Will Ryker and had a cameo by the Olsen Twins
-
Instead of talking about how all our expectations won't be met, how about discussing the drive it took to make this film? As for Scorsese not being hungry anymore--he's been trying to make this film for over 20 years! I'd say he's pretty fucking hungry! The sheer ambition of this project alone demands respect. I feel sorry for the people that get off on prematurely criticizing a labor of love from one of our true artists. How dare you? This guy is probably the most influential filmmaker of the last 30 years, regardless of what his hits and misses may be. You should all be thanking the heavens that someone with talent was given this kind of budget to fulfill his dream. You cream all over Peter Jackson and his opportunity (and realization of his dream), but show such little enthusiasm here. So what if the trailer looks bad? Have the advertising and marketing departments taken over your brains? *** One other thing, one of the reviews in the article above talked about how there was so little focus on character and that the film was mostly plot and action. Couldn't you say the same about Lord of the Rings? WE KNOW the characters because we've either read the books or immersed ourselves in the world of Middle Earth. Same with Star Wars. But I'd argue that FOTR is hardly a character-driven film. It's a story, a damn good one. Why can't GONY pass with flying colors for being the same thing?
-
but how come the priest has a son? Are they Protestant Irish? Or is that why he left Ireland? Just wondering.
-
...too "wacky" by half. face it, the plot stank. GONY certainly looks interesting, and even if it turns out to be something of an artistic disappointment(relative to the weight of expectation), it's still a rarity in movies these days - a film worth going out of your way to see. Sure The Two Towers will make a heap load of money but I'll bet you anything you like TTT doesn't win any oscars other than technical ones - nor should it. Three hours of people dressing up like elves and expecting to be taken seriously is a horrendous prospect
-
Have you ever read a book or are you only capable of wedgeing your ass into a movie theatre seat?
Read the friggen book. Hellcat Maggie Was a bouncer in a club there in the five points. She kept a jar full of the ears of people that had gotten outa line.
And yes she had extremly long nails.
Everyone involved in that time period was completly psycotic.
Starvation and liveing 10 to a room will do that too you.
Get thee to a bookstore you tub of goo.
Cuskarie -
I'm pretty sure "Priest" is a nickname, rather than his profession or calling.
One thing that could bode either well or ill for the movie is that the basic plot of the movie does not come from the book or true events. The main characters are fictional, although they interact with real people like Hell-Cat Maggie and Boss Tweed. (There was a real Bill The Butcher, but I believe this character is quite different). -
Everyone should go and see TTT as this turkey will bomb more than Pearl Harbour. The Two Towers is a true masterpiece and Scorcese stinks worse than Spielberg and Lucas.
-
I hope this doesn't qualify as a personal attack, but grow up a little, will you? Movies aren't about competition for the big dollar, but about what's good. I think most people here are real movie fans who want to see both Gangs and Two Towers.
-
I don't understand all this Casino bashing. It's one of Scorsese's most disturbing, violent, and ominous films. Sure, it may not be easy to watch, but attentive viewers will benefit from its subtle nuances. Is there a more ferociously realistic death scene in the 1990s than Joe Pesci's at the end of Casino. It's incredibly brutal and one can't help but feel sorry for Pesci's volatile character. That's a testament to Scorsese, that he can actually make an audience pitty an amoral psycho like Joe Pesci's character. And he accomplishes this in a completely unsentimental manner. Moreover, Casino is a visual tour-de-force. The influences of the French New Wave are most clearly recognizable in Casino, even more so than Taxi Driver, which had a famous visual homage to Jean-Luc Godard. The acting is top notch by all, including De Niro who was criminally overlooked by the academy that year. Casino may not be Scorsese's best film, but it is certainly his most ambitious. One other thing, why do so many talk backers bash films based on there box office success? Commericial and artistic success are two completely different things. Two of Orson Welles' masterpieces Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil were commericial failures, the latter released as the second feature on a double bill. However, both films are considered unequivical cinematic triumps.
-
The sets remind me of sets for a musical or Highlander 2 - extremely claustrophobic.
-
When it was called GOODFELLAS.
ha -
Dec 11, 2002 2:39:23 PM CST
All those teenage girls who saw Titanic are in college or knocke
by direktor
GONY will probably NOT be a hit. But it will at least make more than enough to justify it's being made. When's the last time Leo had a hit? Titanic? That was 5 years ago. The Beach tanked. Nobody takes takes Scorsese seriously except die-hard film buffs. He hasn't won an oscar yet so the average Joe who lets the Academy decide for him who the best filmmakers are couldn't give a rats ass if this is a Scorsese film or not. So that leaves Leo (see above), Diaz and Day Lewis. Dabiel Day who? And Diaz will only attract the lesbians and 14 - 25 year old guys... which is really all you need anyway.
-
Listen here. First, yeah, Two Towers will rake in the dough
more than Gangs. Christ, whaddya expect? A bunch of elves and men fighting evil orcs and trolls versus an historical deconstruction of the birth of America, what Scorsese has essentially called an 'Eastern Western'? Of course. The average moviegoer isnt concerned in anything weighty or dense. True, LOTR is both those, but its raking in the cash because its spectacular, not because its deep, although it is deep. SEcond, who cares?? Scorsese is the greatest living American filmmaker, and in terms of American filmmakers, he's up there with Kubrick and Coppola and Lumet. And now it's TRENDY to say Scorsese's overrated? to say that his movies 'aren't that great'? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU MORONS? TO that one guy, guys like LaBute, Jonze, Fincher, the Andersons, they're all fine and good, but none of them, even PTA the best, is half of Scorsese. Scorsese is able to imbue a sense of the religious in the mundane. He is like an American Krycztocf Kieslowski, asking questions about morality and life, the deeper questions, questions that, quite frankly, Peter Jackson couldnt tackle to save his life. Yes, LOTR Is great, but look at his post LOTR filmography, cant even TOUCH Scorsese. The man has made 18 films ranging from very good to MASTERFUL. His ONLY true failure is the abysmal Alice Doesnt Live Here Anymore, which is awful. But everything else Boxcar Bertha, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, New York, New York(underrated), The Last Waltz, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy, even Color of Money, Last Temptation of Christ, Goodfellas, Cape Fear, the SUPREMELY underrated AGe of Innocence, Casino, Kundun, BRinging Out the Dead, is great. And, he has NOT Lost his hunger! LOok at Kundun and BRinging Out the Dead, visually they're two of his most daring, innovative films. They may be more inward, more introspective, but they are NOT made simply for "love of craft" the pain in Dead is clear, the spiritual questioning of Kundun is phenomenal. AGE OF INNOCENCE Is quite simply brilliant, and very overlooked. Anyone with a heart can watch that film and see that it comes from a passionate filmmaker who has yet to lose his love for his work. GANGS OF NEW YORK will be the best film of 2002, and there is no way TWO TOWERS or CATCH ME IF YOU CAN will come close to it artistically. CATCH looks good, but very lightweight. And YES, lightweight cant beat heavy, for the most part. -
Long time no see. I think some people dismiss Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore because it's sort of like Fargo or a Chekhov play. It really requires more than one viewing. Slowly its importance and its depth seep into your mind.
-
Unfortunately, I think Ms. Foster's tastes have changed. Her mother was her manager back then, as I'm sure we all know, and she recently fired her mother. So I think that explains her recent "heart-warming" inflictions on society, with the exception of Panic Room. Although Panic Room, which I actually did like, could have been a lot more hard-core and I guarantee she's the reason it was pretty light. Anyway, I think she and Marty would be hard-pressed to find a script which they agree upon.
-
The Jodie Foster Story.
-
See my post right above yours - I most certainly do get it!
-
Are you suggesting they may be bumping the donut, licking the pink taco? I think you may be right, my friend, I think you may be right indeed. After all, look at the gleam in Claire's eye. You can tell she's hot for teacher. Hmm...interesting, very interesting.
-
This wouldn't be the late great innovator of talkback tomfoolery dan maunz fight club would it? Well I certainly didn't know you were still around though it could be an old fan clubbing your monikor. Whatever the case i doubt anyone here would remember you or meself for that matter... though i didn't read over tb....i doubt a Scorcese movie over 2 hours about 1800's gangs will tear any new hymens but you can bet it's a well fucking entertaining flick... and leo's gorgeous cherubic chubbiness
-
Dec 13, 2002 1:42:33 AM CST
Nah, I think I'd rather deside the film is bad now and not waste
by mccormic
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts