Cool News
GANGS OF NEW YORK review
I’ve been tossing around my feelings on GANGS OF NEW YORK for quite some time. I wanted to see the film twice – because… well I felt my feelings after the first showing were a combination of vast disappointment and awe for what was working, and I wanted to see how my feelings would balance out given a second viewing.
Well, GANGS OF NEW YORK might very well be my least favorite Martin Scorsese film ever made.
I love the history, the period, the source material, the sets, the designs and everything having to do with Daniel Day Lewis’ Bill the Butcher’s generation in GANGS OF NEW YORK… However, everything having to do with the younger cast of characters and that new generation… I loathed.
It isn’t a hatred for Leonardo DiCaprio, because I’m actually quite a huge fan of his work. Contrary to popular opinion today, I feel DiCaprio is one of the best young actors working. Unlike many, I haven’t forgotten his work as Gilbert Grape… nor can I forget the amazing charm he exhibited in Baz’s ROMEO AND JULIET or TITANIC – which I still very much enjoy – even if the world seems to have developed a distaste for it post-mania. The only time I’ve genuinely hated Leo in a film was in that truly rancid pile of dung, THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK… whew… Bad Movie.
No, it has nothing to do with the performances of Leo, Cameron Diaz, Henry Thomas and those other youths… No, it actually has to do with the fact that I don’t care for their stories. I don’t feel those characters have the weight, the interest, the insight, the power of the older characters in the film. In fact, every single time we left those older actors to go watch Leo tail Cameron – or go brood in the church depths… I could just care less. The flaccid scenes of Leo’s revenge moments… like where he practices throwing the knife… Well, I just know that at that exact moment, somewhere else in the universe of this film, Daniel Day-Lewis is having a great scene… or John C Reilly’s Happy Jack – whom I would give two teeth to have seen be developed better. Hell, the most fascinating character in the film for me was Jim Broadbent’s Boss Tweed. Oh, and lest we forget Brendan Gleeson’s Monk – there was a great character.
Oh and the best character that we never got to see do much of anything… Liam Neeson’s Priest.
Ya know… I was far more interested in seeing the movie that would have ended with that opening battle than the movie that began with it.
That’s my problem with GANGS OF NEW YORK. The Irish Draft Riots from the Civil War – well – that subplot wasn’t given life, so again… I could just care less. However, just hearing Daniel Day Lewis talk about the Priest and him carving his own eye out and reforging his soul and who he was… THAT’S THE MOVIE I WANT TO SEE.
A film where the character opposite Daniel Day Lewis isn’t a whiney pup, but Liam Neeson’s Priest. Where we see the relationships of Brendan Gleeson, John C Reilly and Liam. Where Bill the Butcher is the man forging himself and sharpening himself to be the man he becomes. I wanted to see Daniel play that defeated Bill, I wanted to see him transform.
INSTEAD – we get a film where there is zero significant character development. All we have is the character that Bill the Butcher has become – and that’s pretty great, but imagine watching him become that character. Can you imagine the eye-carving moment where he decides that’s what he must do to prove his commitment to the Priest. Where he rallies the Natives to fend off the foreign hordes…
That’s the narrative in this film that captured my imagination. That’s the story that when I talk with other film fans, that’s the part of the film they all loved. I mean, did anyone care if Amsterdam lived or died? If Jenny and Amsterdam ever got together? Did anyone feel the betrayal that Henry Thomas’ Johnny Sirocco was allegedly feeling when Vallon hooks up with Jenny? I mean, putting some half-assed REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE storyline in the middle of this film was just a terrible mistake in my opinion. For one, the characters and the performances of these three – well, they just aren’t a pimple on the ass of Dean, Mineo and Wood.
For me, this was a great disappointment. A film that is a profound disappointment. We’ve heard rumors of a 4 hour cut of the movie… I don’t know if there’s an ounce that’ll make a difference if we’re ever allowed to see that, but frankly… This film seems to have been made with all the lack of passion with which Martin Scorsese accepted the Best Direction award at the Golden Globes. Compare his pedestrian run-of-the-mill thanks list to a real speech of passion like Gene Hackman’s.
I know that Scorsese is one of the most elegant and fervent lovers of cinema that has ever seen fit to contribute to the history of film, but last night… His heart wasn’t in it. And I think somewhere along the way with GANGS OF NEW YORK – he just gave up. It sometimes happens with grand works of passion that have been decade long dreams.
It happened to Spielberg on HOOK. HOOK has moments that soar, but ultimately the film nosedives. As does GANGS OF NEW YORK. It’s painful to say that. It isn’t something to relish or cherish or bask in. It’s a god damn travesty. Maybe I was expecting too much, perhaps Daniel Day Lewis, John C Reilly, Brendan Gleeson, Jim Broadbent and Liam Neeson just over-balanced the film to where I could care less about everything else but them. They’re just 5 of the absolute best Actors… PERIOD! And to come away from this feeling cheated by missing their roles… I mean… It’d be like making GOODFELLAS – but instead focusing on Frank Vincent, Tony Darrow and Gina Mastrogiacomo – instead of DeNiro, Liotta, Pesci, Sorvino and Bracco… Just a Terrible injustice.
See – I think one of the problems with GANGS OF NEW YORK was that Scorsese had two stories he wanted to tell – the Older generation and that Newer generation. By trying to strike a balance – I think what happened was he short changed both. He couldn’t cut away from Bill the Butcher to strengthen Vallon’s story and character… at the same time, he couldn’t significantly lower the youth side of the story. The result, for me, is a film that is at war with itself.
At one level that could have worked for the film. That America didn’t know what it wanted to be, the youth of those that came to this country with a dream, or those that had been born here with a dream that what was theirs was theirs. By having it be a split generational story though – you unbalance the character work. Naturally the older characters have better stories – more character, they’ve lived longer. Hell, Leo’s character – throughout this film, we know that all he’s doing is thinking… MUST KILL BILL… Hey… Miramax’s two big Auteur films in consecutive years have the theme… KILL BILL… Hmmm, must be latent aggression towards Clinton alienating the voter base to shift to Dubya… hehehe, just kidding. Anyway – the thing is, all there is to Vallon is that desire to Kill Bill. We never get a sense that he’s in love with Jenny. That he wants to settle down. That he even has a dream of living in the United States. His character is an empty vessel. He has nothing but the memory of his father dying – but no aspirations of his own. No dreams. What will he do when Bill breathes no more? What is it he wants in life? Does he want to be a priest like his father? Does he want a family? To live in New York? I mean, his following Jenny to San Francisco seems more akin to… Oh, let’s put in some sort of fork in the road for his character, but because there is no significant attachment built between Jenny and Amsterdam… well… again, who gives a shit?
See, this is why I would have preferred the Bill / Priest storyline. There you would have fully developed the theme of the dreams of what the Foreign Hordes and the Natives. There wouldn’t be this silly trivial bullshit about going to San Francisco. There were two sides that said… “We’re putting roots down here! Right Here!” and you could, over the course of a 3 hour film, develop that story and those characters. However, in 3 hours of film, we never fully grasp Bill’s character or Amsterdam. I know for me, Bill’s character is the most compelling aspect of the film, but I just don’t feel that even that was explored as fully as my desires to see it be developed left me.
A film of moments and pieces dreaming of being a whole. This will be one of the great cinematic disappointments for me. For those for whom it works, I envy you, I saw all the jigsaw shaped pieces of the puzzle – but in the end, it didn’t make a complete picture. It was missing pieces and had pieces from other puzzles. Both puzzles could make beautiful films in their own rights, but this is no SPARTACUS, which essentially… that’s the story. Leo’s character is no Kirk Douglas. Cameron Diaz is no Jean Simmons. Hell, even Daniel Day Lewis’ Bill doesn’t compare to Laurence Olivier’s Crassus.
In the end, this film came up broken but interesting. Emotional but lifeless. The film never soars, never takes off all the way and it certainly stumbles and trips quite a bit.
-
+ Expand All
-
That this is the same person who enjoyed Godzilla and cried during Armageddon, and who will, mark my words, give Kill Bill a rave review regardless of what ends up on the screen. GONY, despite its flaws, has more ideas per 5 minutes than 90% of Harry's fave films of 2002.
-
That said, I do agree that "Gangs" was disappointing. Though it wasn't as bad as "Bringing out the Dead." Scorsese hasn't made a truly great film since "Goodfellas," though, so I've stopped expecting excellence. Maybe he'll pull a Spielberg soon (somebody who I also thought was done, but was clearly wrong about).
-
Only an hour or so went by after I asked for this review in Golden Globes talkback. Automatic for the people, huh?;)
-
Have to find money to see this one....
-
And yes, a movie leading up to that opening battle WOULD have been preferable.
-
Jan 20, 2003 9:53:06 AM CST
OK, OK, at least you've given some real reasons for not liking G
by barrelrider
...and I have to say, I agree with a lot of them, particularly the stuff about wanting to see the story of Bill and the Priest told. But I felt one of the most compelling things about this movie is the question "why does Amsterdam delay in killing Bill?". This puts the movie more in Hamlet territory than Spartacus [was LO's character REALLY called Crassus? I never knew that], and perhaps this might make you see see the full puzzle, rather than just the pieces. Having said that, this IS a flawed movie, for some of the reasons which you have stated. But then, aren't all of Scorsese's films flawed? Is Taxi Driver perfect in all respects? My overall point is, this isn't the greatest movie ever made, but if you even consider comparing this movie to Hook, you've missed out on something, and maybe should see the film another couple of times....but thanx for eventually reviewing the film, I do like to hear your opinions more than many other film critics.
-
Jan 20, 2003 9:53:55 AM CST
So did Scorcese tell Daniel Day Lewis to just act as much like R
by sod off baldric
Don't get me wrong, I thought his performance was great, but the whole time I was watching him I couldn't help but think how much he reminded me of DeNiro. Leo didn't really do it for me, though, and these feelings do not stem from some dislike for him. I used to think he had so much promise? I mean, what happened to the Leo from What's Eating Gilbert Grape? Now we only seem to get the Leo who believes his own hype, and sleepwalks through his roles. Anyway, overall, Gangs wasn't bad, but it wasn't great. I went in with low expectations and they were met. Oh, and I heard they wanted Captain Lou Albano to play Hellcat Maggie in this, but he got snowed in somewhere. Later.
-
Armageddon made me cry too! Sorry!
-
I wept becuase I just couldn't believe a movie could suck that badly.
-
The orgasm of the movie had leonardo's and cameron's characters crying over the black guy (by the way, are they trying to tell us that uneducated savage street gangs back then were somehow enlightened enough to believe in integration????)... now, my problem is that this character was never more than a background character, if I remember right, he didn't even say line throughout the movie, had nothing to do with the plot, he literally did nothing but grimace in the background during a couple of scenes, and then here everyone is crying over his body... the moment seemed way forced, like the rest of the movie, although I will say that it is worth seeing just to see Bill the Butcher, I agree that a movie centered around his story would have made a 1,000,000 times better film....
-
What the hell is wrong with you harry? GONY was not only one of the top movies of the year but it was also the best Scorsese movie since Goodfellas (or possibly Casino.) I really don't understand the reasons people give for not liking this movie. To me, it was an old-fashioned epic set in a time and place that movies have long ignored, and made all the more interesting by Scorsese's kinetic directing style. I really can't understand how you wet your pants for movies like Spidermand and T3 and then are "dissapointed" by a film like Gangs of New York.
-
What no pics H? heheheh just foolin fat boy!
-
Leo didnt have dreams because he was bent on revenge, empty revenge(makes jack-off hand gesture) it was supposed to be some kind of Hamlet meets Count of Monte Cristo except lame.
cripes even Casino was better than this "epic"
-
I'm sorry that this movie didn't work for everyone. I agree totally with brassmonkey. Everyone has different opinions and just because it didn't work for some people that doesn't mean it won't for others. Even Harry said that he envy's those of us who adore this movie (and I certainly do). AFter all that is what a good review does, gives an opinion.
-
I don't know......maybe if Richard Crenna had starred in some classic b-movies he would have warranted getting a mention and glowing tribute on AICN immediately.
-
GONY was a mediocre movie, and for once I agree 100% with Harry's opinion. An all-time low for all the people involved. Why, for instance was Day-Lewis impersonating De Niro? And it wasn't even De Niro from the period when he was great - it's the De Niro of today who has become a cartoon charicature of his former self. They could have hired any De Niro impersonator for much less money. One point that no-one has mentioned so far is how gratingly awful and inauthentic the "Irish" accents are. Did they never consider getting a decent voice coach? With a project of this size, surely they could have afforded to send di Caprio, Diaz, Reilly etc to Ireland for two weeks prior to filming so they could hear how Irish people really speak??? And anyway, about half-way through the film, they just give up trying to do the accent at all!
-
It sure looked like some other competent (but not great) director other than Martin Scorsese directed this film. Didn't seem like a Martin Scorsese film at all. Seemed like a Kevin Reynolds film or somebody of that caliber. I think the wind is out of Scorsese's sails. He's been in a downward trend starting with his "Kundun" into that year's Tibetan movie sweepstakes which didn't do so hot, to his going through the motions with "Bringing Out The Dead" just to have something to do because his Rat Pack film got put on ice ... and now to this film that would have been a disaster if Daniel Day-Lewis were not cast as Bill the Butcher .... well, I hope Scorsese finds his feet again with "the Aviator."
-
My thoughts on GONY exactly. And it wasn't Decaprio's fault, he was great in "Catch Me If You Can". The younger characters just weren't that interesting and were two dimensional. Bill the Butcher's character left you wanting, just like more Hannibal Lecter after Silence of the Lambs.
-
Jan 20, 2003 10:51:26 AM CST
Whatever Harry... now... PLEASE DO NOT PUT FUCKING BANNERS WITH
by elwen
They are fucking annoying, especially the one which is up right now... Fuck, banners don't even work, when are companies going to understand it?
-
I agree. They scare the shit outta me. I was checking this site out at work and my boss wondered "What the hell got broken". Embarrassing.
-
Harry can spell "foreign"
-
two things, don't forget Scorsese's original cut for this was like an hour or more longer than what we all saw, so its possible that the dvd will expand the stories and make each more fullfilling.
two, too many people confuse the fact that they dont connect with the themes of a film, with the fact that there is something wrong or faulty with the film.
oh and armaggedon sucks. Michael Bay is the film antichrist. -
GONY is not the simple, moralizing, schlep we are used to. It's fragmented yes and maybe even confusing at times. It's not a popcorn movie, nor is it is "right vs. wrong" like ROCKY IV or even propaganda like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. It's a difficult film that shows difficult times. How could you not be moved by seeing Irish immigrants departing from their families to be enlisted in a war that wasn't their own? You didn't care for Leonardo's character, why not? Seeing your father die as a youth and growing up in an orphanage wasn't enough? These were extremely morose and violent times as the film shows. I'm certainly glad I didn't live in that era. You make very little references to the film other than you weren't moved by it or how you would re-write the storyline to include more gore shots? You can barely write a competent review! This review shows the most bland and vague (and misguided) reporting I've ever seen on this site. -
And I agree with every word of Harry. GONY is now my least favourite Scorsese film.
-
nuff said
-
Spielberg said that when you have a dream project that you've wanted to make for years, by the time you get to make it, you've already completed the film in your head, and what ends up on the screen is a half-assed shadow. Imagine drawing the most badass picture of Wolverine in the world, a picture that would just rock everyone that saw it. Now imagine losing that picture, and deciding to redraw it. No way is it going to be as badass as it once was. That's what "Gangs of New York" was. A film that that kicked much ass in Scorsese's mind, but didn't make it onto the screen. he spent too long thinking about it. That's why Spielberg clicked with his two films of 2002. They weren't huge dream projects. He was just a director-for-hire for the actors involved.
-
Agree that GONY was flawed, but despite that had more verve, passion and interest than 99% of the torpid shit that is passed off as 'challenging' mainstream cinema today. Of the flaws - Yes, Di Caprio is never more than ok. Yes, Diaz's part is underwritten. Yes, Day Lewis is playing the De Niro that De Niro forgot to be. And YES, Priest Vallon's story is a tantalising 'maybe', but...THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!! GONY is a movie about the end of the past. A movie about nation building. A great 'poetic' interpetation of the whole civil war situation. The triumph of the NATIONAL over the LOCAL played out in the mythical Five Points area. Its also, I think, a quintessentially AMERICAN film, in that it digests many of its 'foreign' reference points (Leone, Bertolucci, Passolini, Visconti, Fellini, Powell etc)and then mixes them together in a great big stew.
My fave scene has to be Bill The Butcher, draped in an American flag talking to Amsterdam about his dead Father. Talk about iconic!
Harry, you're a great enthusiast for cinema and do a spot on job
keeping the faith here, but GONY your least favourite Scorsese?!! C'mon man, you're better than that. No film Marty EVER makes will plumb the depths of Cape Fear. And, for the record, my least favourite Scorsese movie is Goodfella's. So there! -
I just have to say is that I wonder if Alexander Payne, Spike Jonze, Tarantino, Fincher etc. are all going to branch out and try as many different genre's and types of films as directors like Scorsese, Polanski, and Spielberg. I mean... these guys are getting up there, and just when you thought they were finished, they sucker punch you in the stomach. Even if GONY was deeply flawed, Scorsese is still seeing how far he can reach, which is amazing to me. Same thing with Spielberg. Kubrick did the same thing until his dying day. I mean... Scorsese went from Mean Streets to Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. Did you see any such leap from Spike Jonze? Not to say that this younger generation isn't making great films, they are. It's just that I'm not sure these guys have as much to say or even one millionth the reach that the older generation of directors has. I guess only time will tell. So... in the end, I have to really give props to people like Spielberg, Polanski, and Scorsese this year for all pulling one (Spielberg actually pulled two, that had to hurt) out of their ass while still being just two steps away from senior citizenship. Hats off to you guys... and to the younger generation - you're all great... but lets see you all branch off a little more than you have with your junior and sophomore efforts. Anyone here agree with me?
-
...for ridiculing my emotions surrounding Armageddon. Interestingly, your criticisms of the film mirror almoat exactly my criticisms of your momma.
-
But at least it would be a *positive* criticism of his mother. Possibly. I have to disagree with you on the film though, as I thought it shallow and uninvolving. Still, that's my opinion and yours is yours.
-
was better (in your opinion) than this movie?!? I thought this movie was pretty damn good. After reading Harry's review I wonder if we saw the same film? Sure, it has some flaws, almost every film has some things you'd change, but you (or I) are not the director. It's not your vision. I thought Husker was right on, it's not the story of the past, but rather the past becoming the future. And Leo's charachter does have some arc. He is set on revenge, but almost abandons it to be Bill's "son". He does question his actions, even after he kills him. I really liked how anticlimactic it is for Amsterdam and Bill in the moments before Bill dies. They look at each other in the midst of all the destruction like, "is this it?" Anyway, I've rambled enough. I just wonder how someone can cry during the steaming pile that is armageddon and then hate this movie? Oh, wait, I think I just answered my own question.
-
If it was just Mori and Harry saying that GONY was deeply flawed that's one thing. But talking to Joe Moviegoer has convinced me to just wait for the DVD. Too many people have told me that it's just an uninvolving, busy movie. And I haven't seen so many other great films that I really don't have the time to see a mediocre one. Then again, I could be wrong and I'll get it home and it could blow me away. but I'm doubting it - a lot of people I share tastes with aren't loving it. And hey, if it's not very good, Scorsese fans, that's okay. It's one out of many. A man with Scorsese's talent isn't going anywhere. Best Scorsese, btw: THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.
-
He may have wanted to be a priest Harry, but not like his father. Just because they called his father "priest" does not mean that he was, in fact, a catholic priest. Remember, in the nineteenth century, like today, catholic priests were celibate. No catholic priest would have had a son. Also, at the beginning of the film there is another priest passing out the eucharist to the dead rabbits as they prepare for battle. I don't suppose they would have needed that guy if Vallon was an ordained priest.
-
I pretty much completely agree with Harry's review, for once, but there are a few nits I wanted to pick. For one, this was a movie costing, what, $200 million or thereabouts? So what really irritated me were the small things. Snow on the ground that looked and behaved EXACTLY like light coloured sand. A CGI elephant. And most of all, a glass eye which behaved like a real eye and moved around. Now I am no prosthetic eye expert, but I am pretty sure that they don't behave exactly like someone wearing, say, a contact lens over their own intact eye. I know, I know, it's a very small thing, but by the end of the film it was pissing me off to a quite scandalous degree. Although in fairness it may be that I was pissed off with the rest of the film and merely projecting onto the glass eye. Or maybe there'll be a follow-up cross-over with Minority Report and it will turn out that there was a rational explanation. Or not.
-
Jan 20, 2003 12:00:43 PM CST
re: Buck_Turgidson ....you hit the nail right on the head!
by red raider
Absoutely correct! Yes, it's almost a given that Harry's review of KILL BILL (even if it's a cinematic bowel movement of a film) will be marvelous. Perhaps Scorcese should've sent "pwesents".....
-
This isn't a movie about kids versus Bill's gang. Or New york in the mid-1800's. It is about this country, why it is what it is today, and why it is what it was back then. It is a film about each citizen's role in this country of ours, and what happens when we take what we have for granted. What happens when we let the government run its course and we sit back fighting our own wars of prejudice, power, greed, and spectacle.
If you went to the movie to see Bill "the villain" or Leo "the hero" then I can totally understand why you missed the point. Or if you went there to see a gang fight movie you also missed the point. You were right about the puzzle analogy Harry, cause this movie is a puzzle. But the characters, you wish were developed more, and the little plots that weren't developed more, are the pieces. Each of those characters is a tiny piece that comes in to make a whole.
Every "character" in this movie was just a part of the greater character in this film that we can call, "the USA." Each of those little characters all saw the USA as thier own ondividual means to an end. Their own way to make a better life for themselves. The Butcher wanted to keep the hordes out, Tweed wanted money and power, Amsterdam wanted revenge, the Priest wanted fair treatment for the Irish, the blacks wanted inalienable human rights, and Jenny wanted to be loved in a non-business sense.( I know i am missing others, but you can draw your own conclusions about them, i.e. the weatlhy)
Now Monk is the most interesting of these characters, he represents the ideals of the USA. Running his own business, staying out of the street fights (as best he could), becoming the sherriff and trying to make order. So we have all these pieces that make up the whole. The whole is the backbone of the country, what makes it tick, the whole is "the USA."
So we have the notion of "The USA", the way everyone sees the land of the free, and we see the way the each embrace that ideal. Then we have Monk, trying to reach that ideal notion that Americans are allowed by the Constitution.
Then we have the government, not the corrupt one run by Tweed, the one in the midst of its own civil war, but the one forced to fight against itself because we use the notion of "The USA" to help ourselves to whats ours, instead of nurturing and protecting the Constitution.
The people of the five points and New York were so wrapped up in their own fight for their country, that they have forgotten about the whole. So all we see of the country we created is a row of soldiers and a fleet of ships,forced to put down civil unrest, one that is rioted against way too late, because they ignored the greater good and use "The USA" for their own needs.
What really drove it home for me was Bill's fake eye. And on Bill's eye was the image of the eagle and the shield, the exact same image that is on my grandfather's naval tatoo.Here is a man, racist, violent, yet he helps his own, and sees the country giving him his right to do so. We are entitled to our freedoms and he expresses them, not as the way we all do, i hope, but in a way he is entitled to. He has a love for this country that most characters possess in the film, but who all express it in the wrong way. -
Plenty of priests had illegitimate children, nevermind buggering the alter boys. Either way, there was no reason why he couldn't have taken holy orders after having children - youthful mistake etc etc.
-
...you know your shit Harry. I've got to ask you if your love goes that deep why don't you get involved in making movies.
Anyway it was a deeply flawed film and as I said in my review it is all the more dissappointing because it has glimpses of brilliance.
And thank you for notputting signs in your top 10. That movie was absurd. You don't look at the ridiculous through a profound window. -
Jan 20, 2003 12:28:08 PM CST
Funny, one mention of a new Matrix trailer online, and I totally
by minderbinder
-
cannot understand the generally hostile reaction to this film. I thought it was a real crowdpleaser if anything.... pure entertainment. The look of it was wonderful and Leo and Cameron were far better than i had expected. The sheer energy swept me along.... and the performances esp. of the older cast members elevated it well in to the outstanding bracket. A different vision from Scorcese..... time will tell how it'll bear up.
-
I totally agree with what you are saying but unfortunately the reason for it is simple. These guys LIVED!! the younger generation has little to tell cause they are portraying what they have seen, mostly on TV but have lived little themselves. Just look at Tarantino (although his work is great) he seems to get all his life experience from watching movies other people made
-
Scorcese has reached a level of creative and artistic clout that few living directors enjoy, and spent a long time creating an expensive movie that isn't setting the world on fire. GONY constitutes an incredible waste of time and resources. Who cares what Harvey did or didn't do to the movie, Scorcese cosigned on the theatrical cut.
-
Jan 20, 2003 12:53:19 PM CST
Here's what Marty would have said at the Globes if that rat bast
by arnzilla
According to Friedman at FoxNews.com: "What Scorsese was going to do, he told me, was praise the Hollywood Foreign Press Association in its film preservation efforts. He handed me his folded, typed list of eight titles saved by the HFPA, including Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory and Samuel Fuller's Shock Corridor."
Harry, was Hook the one with the hairy Peter Pan and the toothy Tinkerbell? "Never get a sense that he's in love with Jenny?" That's because he's in love with Bill, of course. Didn't you notice their graphic sex scene at the end with the accompanying money shot? Why would Amsterdam want to settle down? Where'd that come from? Perhaps you're thinking of Far and Away here. Or maybe you're just not thinking. When "Bill breathes no more," Amsterdam will mourn him and take his place. I don't think his father was a priest. Just like Gavin Mcleod wasn't a real captain. Understand? Bene. The attachment isn't between Jenny and Amsterdam, it's between Amsterdam/Jenny and Bill. The San Francisco "bullshit," as you call it, WAS bullshit. Why do you think Scorsese showed that friggin' map?
Tzaddi, it was forced integration. They lived on top of each other. Orson W, you nimenog, why send DiCaprio and Diaz to Ireland if their characters aren't Irish, but Irish-Americans? Heleno, you sprat, listen to the Aardvark and Bob Ess. You know damn well it didn't cost $200 million. I also don't believe you about your alleged problems with the eye, or the snow, or the elephant (great CGI, BTW).
GONY's definitely in Casino territory. In other words, it's 1000x better than Chicago.
-
DeNiro is a great actor, but he still isn't in Day Lewis's class. Daniel Day Lewis has been the greatest living actor for more the past 15 years. I just wish he'd work more. Go back and watch My Left Foot, The Crucible, In The Name Of The Father, The Boxer, The Age Of Innocence, A Room With A View, My Beautiful Laundrette, etc. Robert DeNiro, as good as he is, could not reach these notes. On the flipside, Day Lewis could easily do any of DeNiro's roles. DeNiro's attempt at playing a handicapped person (Awakenings) was a joke compared to Day Lewis My Left Foot. And I'd take Day Lewis's boxer in The Boxer to DeNiro's overrated Raging Bull any day. Watch them back to back. I dare you.
-
...is really fucking annoying. Gangs of New York was good.
-
Jan 20, 2003 1:19:48 PM CST
Uga: Nice. I've always thought "Days of Thunder" is the worst mo
by tarl_cabot
"Gone in 60 seconds" is encroaching on that dubious honor...
-
I think the roles of DeCaprio and Diaz were miscast. I think having actors with a saltier edge to them would've added much more depth and impact to the characters. DeCaprio still looks like a kid to me, and his acting chops don't raise him above his looks (yet). I don't buy his tough guy routine, either in this film or in Titanic (he was supposed to be a hardened outcast, playing poker in a seedy bar when we find him). I'm not a huge fan of DeCaprio but I do respect his work in Basketball Diaries and Gilbert Grape. In both of these roles he was in his element. I've always maintained Titanic was a bunch of overrated hogwash. Even when it was first being released. Great to look at, but not much beyond that. The real star of that film was the ship. Diaz just didn't belong in this film. She was terrible in this role.
-
There's nothing more amateurish than a "critic" droning on about "character development" while completly ignoring the virtuoso asthetic qualities of a film. Admittedly, the characters are broadly drawn, but I'll bet Harry never had any complaints about the lack of character development in THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY (for example.) That's the kind of film this is, sprawling, operatic and yes, a bit uneven. Given this fact, comparisons to GOODFELLAS are less than useless.
Also, please stick to reviewing what's actually onscreen not what you wish you were watching. Yes, more time spent with the older characters would have been nice, but that movie doesn't exist. This was a bad habit of the late Gene Siskel as well, so at least Harry's in good company.
GANGS OF NEW YORK is not one of Scorsese's best films,I agree. That being said, it still has more cinematic virtue than ninety-percent of the films released in North America last year. p.s.-Actually, it's hard to take any reviews on this site seriously, after Harry and Moriarty both gushed all over RULES OF ATTRACTION. That film was rancid, rancid I tell you!
-
...because if you Could Care Less then that means you cared some for the film which in truth you did not. So you mean to say that there is no possible way you could have cared any less for this thing. :-P
-
funny. all of harry's problems with gony were the same problems i had with "catch me if you can"...now there was a lifeless movie.
-
Rumour has it.....Daniel Day Lewis spent seven months "in character"....fantastic Daniel, well done!......going to all that trouble just so you could look like James Finlayson from Laurel and Hardy fame!
-
Jan 20, 2003 2:42:58 PM CST
Gangs didn't quite work for me either, probably because I expect
by bigw
I think the basic plot was fine, but I really wanted an explanation for why all these people were who they were, and I think that links directly to the crushing poverty of the 5 points. Why did the "older generation" hate the irish so much? They were living in filth, in an area where greater than 50% of children born died in the first 2 months, where a boarding house room would hold 8 families, sleeping on the floor. And here were boatload of other people moving into the same, intollerable area. If someone stole a loaf of bread from you or me, we'd just go get another, but if it's your last loaf of bread, and you had to feed your family, you'd kill anyone who looked at it.
Quite frankly, the 5 points didn't seem all that bad to me, other than the fighting, which seemed pretty much under control until DiCaprio showed up. Sure, it was bad by today's standards, but not by the standards of the day. That place wasn't just bad, it was a nightmare (no way would a starving neighboorhood have pigs, which last I checked were eatible, wandering around), and because of that, all the characters became a little more 1 dimensional to me. Also because of this, the characters need to perform acts in order to advance the plot, instead of the plot advancing through their actions. Example: the black character. They didn't really explain his existence at all, but they needed someone for a catalist to the whole faceoff at the church, so there he was. That was his whole job, that's why few lines were "wasted" on him, and no explation was even offered for why a gang of poverty stricken,violent, uneducated thugs, centered on their Irish ethnicity, would have a black companion.
That said, still one of the better movies I've seen this year, I'm just a little sad to see something so close to greatness fall short. -
The phrase is "CouldN'T care less" Think about it!! "I could not care less for those characters"
-
Jan 20, 2003 2:55:28 PM CST
What this movie needed was for one of the gangs to be totally co
by retrace
With their pouches full of dead babies and stuff.
-
This is the most piss-poor review I have read on this incredible masterpiece. Gangs of New York is the best film of 2002. No matter how much you try and tell yourself Harry, face it, you just didn't get it. The film doesn't have faults. You do.
-
Some of you people really need to rethink how you go about critiquing a review. Harry is oft maligned (quite rightly in my opinion) for a number of things - he is a blatant sell-out, yes (for a quick illustration, check out the movies Harry has positively reviewed over the past year and compare them with those that advertised on his sites - Jason X, Blade 2, Rules of Attraction, etc), and we all know his review of Kill Bill will be spectacular regardless of the actual merits of the film. He is long winded and pompous, yes, as evinced by his Fellowship of the Ring review and his Blade 2 review, among countless others. These are relatively objective comments and, thus, can be made without arrogantly presuming that your subjective opinion is superior to all others. However, you can't flay him for merely disagreeing with your opinion of a film and act as if this is some sweeping character flaw - it makes you seem more pompous and arrogant than he'll ever be by assuming that your opinion and yours alone is correct and others must be incompetent to think otherwise. Chide Harry for his very obvious shortcomings - there are certainly enough - but don't belittle yourself by presuming to lump subjective opinion onto that lengthy list. This review is a GREAT review. It is objective and sticks to the merits of the film. I don't AGREE with the review (I rather liked GONY), but that doesn't mean Harry is incompetent - check rottentomatoes.com and you'll see a LOT of reviewers agree with him. If Harry keeps his reviews like this, and if his reviews begin showing more cohesiveness with popular opinion than with site banners, this site will quickly recover from its ethical and professional slump. Otherwise, there's always darkhorizons.com :)
-
Ya big puss. By the way, my mom's been asking about you...she wants the rest of her money, ya cheap bastard. Just because you couldn't get it up doesn't mean you don't have to pony up the dough.
-
Still want to see this, slight ass-kicking in the review or not.
-
Just want to say that I agree with all of the things things said in this review.
The sets and all the tech stuff was truly amazing. As was Day-lewis, he wont win on Oscar night, I think Jack has that in the bag and am looking forward to seeing About Schmidt.
Leo cant compete with Day lewis, just as he cant compete with Hanks. Cameron Diaz who everyone likes in an eye candy sort of way-
acts well... like eye candy.
Why did Marty kill off Priest Vallon?
This will not end Scorcese's career, it would have killed the career of a newish director.
All directors please heed the following warning:
you cannot win an argument with Harvey Weinstein. Shekah Kapur tried and lost, look what happend to the four feathers?
-
I totally agree with your review Harry, the Amsterdam storyline is a bust, it would have been interesting to follow Bill and how he bacame that way and show more of Boss Tweed and how he controlled the area and his relationship with Bill. Even the opening fight, I had a problem with, I guess its more of the look or the costumes, it kinda looked out of period, it looked like Mad Max or the Warriors to me. I agree that it is about nation building and how NY is NY today, just wished they concentrated more on that. It will be unfortunate that Scorsese will win his Oscar for this one, it will be a shame.
-
http://www.fortunecity.co.uk/cinerama/brazil/64/cameron_diaz04.jpg
-
We seem to have been here before :-) ... In a TalkBack, Far Far Away. Never the less, these links are a lot more appropriate than those bloody annoying banner ads, and the only noise you get is the sound of the five knuckle shuffle followed by the sensation of soft toilet paper.
-
My feeling exactly. So many great moments in the film are overshadowed by miscasting and poor editing. The ending was so badly done I couldn't believe I was still in wathcing the same film. That Golden Globe is as tarnished as Denzel's Oscar. Enjoy it Marty! You deserved it (just not for GONY).
-
Okay, I haven't been compelled to "talkback" in a LONG time, however after having read this review, I felt I had to. I really enjoyed this film. Perhaps it had to do with the fact that I didn't expect it to be a great movie-I actually was hoping to see the trailer for KILL BILL. However, I was totally taken in. I placed myself in the hands of a master filmmaker and watched the film unwind. Now would I have liked to have seen more of Liam Neeson's Priest? Sure, I felt his character was very interesting. I still found DiCaprio's character's story to be very interesting. He is a man who watched his father killed. He became consumed by revenge although he didn't quite know how to carry it out. So he decided to wait and see. Get to know the man, see what made him tick, all of this before he made his move. Perhaps he didn't attempt to kill Bill the butcher sooner is because he
that was the only thing driving him, as harry says, the character doesn't have any other dreams, maybe that's all that's driving him. Diaz's thief presents him with an option.
Anyways, the funny thing is, Harry's review for GONY is almost EXACTLY the way I feel about the Lord of the Rings. Gorgeous film, great special effects, but I really didn't care for the Hobbits. I would much rather have seen them be minor players. Plus the film was overly melodramatic (I'm referring to the 1st film, because I didn't bother to see the 2 Towers). Almost every character cries in this film. There are shots of tears rolling down practically every major character's face. Frodo gets stabbed twice, and we're asked to be shocked/concerned both times. When Frodo gets stabbed w/ the demon sword and Liv Tyler's character sits there cradling his head I felt like yelling at her to put him on the damn horse and get him some medical attention!! Then the film is over 3 hrs long. There were plenty of things I would have cut out, one of them being there trek up the mountain, where they turn around due to the snow storm only to take the tunnels, why didn't they just cut to that in the first place?
Anyways, sorry for rambling, but I just strongly disagree w/ harry's opinion with the problems in GONY, when I felt that they were definitely more of a problem in the lord of the rings-the fellowship. -
Sure, GONY had it's flaws. But damn if parts didn't stick with me days after I saw it. One of the few films of 2002 to do so. And it is one of my favorite films of the year. But still, one of your better reviews Harry. Though I think you overdid it with the Hook part. Hook was a piece of crap. The problem is, you have tarnished your rep with many MANY reviews that make no sense. Reviews that oversell stuff that just aint that good (Blade II, the terrible TERRIBLE Rules of Attraction). To take reviews seriously you have to trust the person reviewing the film. And as a reviewer you are not trustworthy. You LOVED AOTC. That boring, overdone mess, that was good for fifteen mintues at the end, and therefore considered great because that's all the idiots that love it remember. Oh well. I can understand not liking GONY. I mean, it was no Blow.
-
That the stunning Eva Henger was cut out of the final film! Scorsese has definately lost it now. But hey, if I knew some Italian pornagraphers too, I'd want her in my movie.
-
Leonardo is a great actor, those of you that disagree with that have never acted in your life. Rent Gilbert Grape, enough said. However, as good as he is he was miscast in this role. Colin Farrell should have played this part.
-
The real Butcher Bill died several years before the draft riots (he was assissinated in a theatre). If you want to know more about all the gangs in the movie (Dead Rabbits, Plug Uglies etc), I'd recommend the very fun read: The Big Book of Thugs.
-
judging by the number of links to and pictures of naked actresses that Harry's put up and that have appeared on the TB's recently.
-
Have any of you seen that ten ton Cleveland Steamer called Bringing out the Dead? What a ridiculous waste of celluloid that film was. GONY was not great, but it certainly was entertaining. It had some insightful things to say about the nature of 'history'. To my mind Harry missed the point. 14min. 59sec. elapsed lil' buddy.
-
i was actually kinda interested in seeing FD2 til they started plastering the site with loud annoying ads. i wish i could shoot the person dead who's responsible for these annoying banner ads, but i guess i'll settle for the much-less-effective route of simply not seeing the movie instead.
-
Harry gave great reviews to both LOTR movies AND both Star Wars movies. You're the one with a clear agenda, not him.
-
Comparing Scorsese's speech to Gene Hackman's at the Golden Globes in your "review" was pointless. I was grateful that Scorsese kept it short and got the hell off the stage. That said I think you missed the point of GONY. This was a film that was painted using broad brush-strokes, with the details filled in later. It remains my favorite film of 2002.
-
the funniest thing is that harry actually thought Liam Neeson was a priest in the movie. haha moron.
-
"Thanks for ridiculing my emotions surrounding Armageddon. Interestingly, your criticisms of the film mirror almoat exactly my criticisms of your momma."
The truth is, the only reason to cry during ARMAGEDDON was because the sound was ear-bleedingly loud. Even Bruckheimer admitted the soundtrack was way too loud. -
I've heard it all now. Best film of the year is flawed. That's hilarious.
-
God bless ya - i'm not the only one who noticed it. He says it 3 times in that review!
-
I could, but I can't.
-
Jan 20, 2003 6:49:21 PM CST
Crazy mofo - you just needed ARMAGEDDON and you would have had
by glawen
-
I don't know if I am allowed to say this on Talkback, but I rarely agree with Harry Knowles, and even more rarely find his reviews insightful or well written. In general, I find that they betray a shallow understanding of film as an art form.
Therefore, imagine my surprise that his review of "Gangs of New York" expresses my feeling on 2002's biggest and most interesting failure far better than any other review I've read. I found the comparison to "Hook" interesting and fair (though I believe "Hook" actaully succeeds better on it's level that "Gangs" does). More reviews like this one MIGHT cause me to reconsider my opinion on Harry Knowles the critic. -
While I admit that Gangs was not up to the standards every one was hoping for it to be, it still was better than most of the dreck last year, some of which Harry really loved and kept plugging all the time (Rules Of Attraction).
-
Jan 20, 2003 7:28:47 PM CST
Harry is just pissed because Marty is going to deservedly win th
by sparticusmaximus
TTT was lacklustre. Don't believe the AICN hype. It is incredibly more flawed than Marty's masterpiece. Harry is trying to fight a PR campaign against Marty's Oscar glory. Coincidently, this review comes the day after the Globes......Hmmmm.....Hail GONY. It rocked. One for the ages.
-
Harry doesn't like a movie and it ends your world. Give me a break. Harry didn't like MINORITY REPORT either and coming from a huge Spielberg fan here I still woke up the next morning. Maybe it is a masterpiece as you say. Maybe in 10 years it will be validated. But all the things I've read tell me that Scorsese made the obvious choices here. So I'll be rooting for THE PIANIST or CHICAGO instead, and anxiously awaiting Scorsese's Howard Hughes pic which sounds like it will rule. This takes nothing away from Scorsese, he is and will always be one of the masters. And when GONY comes out on DVD, hell, I'll be the first to rent it.
-
Jan 20, 2003 9:19:54 PM CST
Really, if you view Gangs of New York as being somewhat light, e
by el duderino
It's total popcorn. To be honest, I think the film could have made serious cash at the box office had Miramax's marketing dept. taken a more laid back approach instead of selling it as some esoteric Oscar-calibre costume drama. I can see why Harry was disappointed, and I certainly understand each of his points, but I will never bow down and declare this to be a bad picture! For those who haven't seen it yet, please keep in mind that this is not OSCAR FARE, only so much as Star Wars was Oscar fare. This movie is built like On the Waterfront in terms of how things play out. It is VERY old Hollywood. And regarding all these claims that the film is extremely historically accurate... can you be so sure? Was Bill able to throw knives as well as the film depicted him as doing with only ONE EYE?! There are many more questions I could ask relating to the validity of the story itself (I'm sure the historical details like costuming, etc, were right on), but that's not the beef of the picture. Trust me, this movie is damn entertaining, so leave everything you know about the film at home (something I wish more film geeks could do with every film, hence they might have enjoyed Red Dragon a helluva lot more had the name Brett Ratner not flashed in their minds like a strobe light throughout the entire fucking picture).
-
see it or DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Jan 20, 2003 10:40:20 PM CST
Harry's review is nearly identical to Pauline Kael's critique of
by arnzilla
BTW, Puddin' Taine, wasn't Eva Henger the blonde whore in bed with Bill in that overhead shot?
-
Okay, maybe I'm overreacting, and I'm sure most of y'all can name 100 movies, worse, but I'm not a mass movie-goer, so when I see a flick that really sucks, I just get pissed.
I think that the potential of this one (which was unrealized) is one of the things that pissed me off so much. Scors rocks! He's a genius of composition. Even wooden performances don't usually hurt his flicks, but I just couldn't wait for this to end.
I haven't enjoyed movie-going experience LESS since I saw Mortal Kombat 2 drunk on tequila in a shitty theatre 11:35pm after being up for 48 hours.
I'm not going to bother deconstructing everything I DIDN'T like about this movie. My hatred is that pure. But, I will say at times it looked beautiful and that nothing can sour me on Martin, so I'l be back to see his next one.
Did I mention I really hated this flick. I was home visiting family for Christmas, and I had to wake my dad up at 1am just to tell him how bad it was.
-
Jan 20, 2003 11:48:31 PM CST
Harry, I only agree with you about Leo's character. Other than t
by amychaser5
What Harry said about Leo's Vallon, I totally agree. You had no idea who this person was. His only certain personality trait was that he wanted to kill Bill. And it's not even Dicaprio's fault; his character is just underwritten is all. Other than that, this movie was FANTASTIC. Granted, it would be very intersting to see a movie ending with the opening battle, but that isnt what this movie is. I havent seen About Schmidt, so I dont know what to say about Nicholson's performance, but I really hope that Day Lewis takes home the best actor oscar. Although it would have been cool for Scorsese to get a best director oscar for something like goodfellas, I hope he gets his well deserved award for Gangs. I'm really upset that alot of people downright hated this movie. Other than the underwritten DiCaprio role, a flawless movie.
-
Jan 20, 2003 11:57:03 PM CST
Gangs of New York - great filmmaking AND important film
by trader groucho
One thing missing from Harry's review and the talkbacks (best as I could tell) is the fundamental point Scorcese was making by having events (the draft riots) overtake the insignificant concerns of of Bill and Amsterdam. This story well transcended the arcs of the two leads - it's really about a vital turning point in the history of this nation. The Civil War was the elephant in the room. It received scant little attention because Scorcese assumed that the War is a part of our schemata. He chose to build on that, by telling the tale of two petty men who don't pay attention to the history happening around them. Harry wants the story of Bill's rise to power, the conflict with the priest. Well, that wasn't the movie Scorcese made, and frankly, I don't blame him one iota for not making that movie. That type of story is the oft-told tale. Scorcese chose instead to whip out a machete and slash his way into different territory. He chose as his backdrop the first full-on war in the history of humanity that was fought not for economics or land, but for the idea that all people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And God bless Marty for doing it. IMHO, he is more deserving of directorial accolades this year than anyone else out there. - Trader Groucho
-
She was so out-of-time and way too modern. She has all the depth of a tea-spoon. She should stick to swirling ass movies like CA2 drek, since she's really not an actess but A-List T&A.
-
Well-said, Groucho. But Lewis... "Bill the Butcher racist for no reason?" Are you sure you saw the film? Bill gives two speeches on why he's a racist, both having to do with loyalty to this country. Your racial views have seemingly blinded you, too. An Irish mob dragged a beaten and bloody Black man to a lampost, lynched him, burned him, then beat him again. Did you miss that, too? I don't see how you could have. Scorsese even juxtaposed graphic art from the era during the riot sequence. "Learn from the screenwriting class in Adaptation?" I haven't seen the film yet, but it seriously suggests that voiceover is for amateurs? It doesn't mock such an idea? Scorsese's best films have voiceovers. "Unless done correctly?" LOL. You like films that stick to the screenwriting rules, eh? That's nice.
-
split over two mails only makes it a Full House ;-)
-
What is a sprat? I admit that I exaggerated for the sake of effect as regards the budget, but my basic point still stands - the effects were ropier than they had any right to be. You "don't believe my alleged problems" with those effects? What? Then why on earth did I take the trouble to mention them? It wasn't a bad film, but it had huge flaws. Everyone else had already covered the plot imbalances, the sometimes sketchy characterisation and the overblown scale of the thing, so I thought I'd throw in the things that irritated me that no one had mentioned. Sorry if you didn't notice them. Why not go back and have another look?
-
I've already had 7 looks and think I know the film pretty well.
BTW, a "sprat" is a little guy. The fellas in the film would occasionally insult each other with this term. It's listed in The Rogue's Lexicon, a book of criminal slang edited by a NYC police chief in the mid-19th century. -
Hi Harry,
Don't know if you read these things but what the hell.
Enjoyed your review, but have different feelings about it than yourself, which i thought i'd mention....
The film really worked for me because i took it on two levels, the revenge tale that was Valon's; and as an insight in to the confusion of what America IS!!!(No US bashing here - EVERY nation struggles for its soul and because of its global status America's is by far the most accessible)
Valon has very real torment in his quest for revenge, he is as seduced by Bill as us, and only at the point where he learns of the ambiguities of Bills relations with Jen does he go down to practise with the knife solidifying his resolve to KILL BILL.
This aspect of the film is Leo's story as much as Goodfella's is Liotta's.
And whilst Leo never matches Day Lewis (could anyone - an outstanding performance)he offers a robust and passionate performance.
I really think the Priest/Bill film would be interesting but i can't help thinking it would have been a more isolationist film (it ending with Bills triumph an' all).
The Confusion that permeates through the film really helps highlight the Characters biwilderment at events bigger than themselves and hints at the questions that hang over America like a veil, issues like Law vs Liberty. A theme common to many contempary and Classical American works.
Great great film - great acting - great set - directed greatly (except the score to the first battle - big shout out to Moriarty on nailing that one)
Scorsese/Cinema fans give it time this one will slowly be recognized as a CLASSIC.
Right - thats that - i can breathe now
Cheers -
Jan 21, 2003 7:50:38 AM CST
I liked it....but for 3 hours of ass-numbness, I should've loved
by xthecrovvx
For the most part, I agree with Harry....You have a shitload of intriguing characters and situations, and they go NOWHERE...though, underdeveloped or not, Bill the Butcher is a great fuckin' character....the big problem here is that the set up for this film is Amsterdam killing Bill...we know he's gonna do it...and starting the film with the "epic" battle sequence almost puts a watermark on that fact....Vallon will kill Bill...but once Vallon returns, its as if Scorsese was running out in front of the screen "But wait! There's more! Don't leave yet!".....It would've been one thing if the other plotlines had more meat to them, especially this whole deal with most of the old Dead Rabbits now working for Bill....these people are traitors....what is hinted at but not given proper attention is that most of them seem to know it...they work for the devil, and dont care...and the biggest oversight is that there seems to be quite the setup that Amsterdam's getting just a little too comfortable playing it undercover with the Butcher....instead of wasting Henry Thomas' character on some two-shot jealousy angle, he could've been the one trying to remind a near-traitor Amsterdam what must be done...who he is...when the riots happen, what would the dynamic be if the son of Priest Vallon stood with the Natives? It plays like this the entire 3 hours, with plotthreads that lead to nowhere...even in the midst of some great, and i mean GREAT moments....but oh well.....thats just the bottom line....there's not nearly enough here to hate the movie, but the flaws are the kind that you just CANT ignore.......and yes, Liam Neeson's Priest is ultimately the Darth Maul of this story...the guy you wish there was another half hour or so to add to, and he only lasts 5 minutes...there my two cents...revolution is my name/
-
I think Peter Travers said it best: "No film this year reached higher or achieved more." I love this site, I've been reading it on a daily basis for going on four years, but every now and again, a collective opinion seems to take shape on a film among its principal writers that I am simply at a loss to understand. Harry, Moriarty and everybody else can, and have, been accused of a lot of things over time, but a lack of enthusiasm could never be one of them. So why do I feel that a good deal of the basis for their ultimate take on GANGS stems from an unwillingness to fully invest in the picture. After all, no matter what your opinion may be of the film, I don't think anybody can question that it boasted the highest pedigree of all cinematic offerings this year. I sometimes think that they simply can't get their heads out of Middle-Earth for long enough to allow themselves to be consumed by another world put on film, and make no mistake, the New York of 1863 is every bit as fully realized as Peter Jackson's epic vision. I'm not going to go down that road much travelled in these talkbacks of railing on a person for his or her opinion simply because I don't agree with it, but the way in which we anticipate a film can't help but influence the way that we eventually experience it. I'll be quite clear: I love THE LORD OF THE RINGS, I sincerely do, I think that this trilogy is one of the most wonderful things to ever happen to modern cinema, but it is not perfect. Actually, I think that FELLOWSHIP is pretty much perfect, but THE TWO TOWERS is not. I still think that its a fantastic film, and that Helm's Deep is not only the high point of the trilogy thus far, but one of the most awesome spectacles I've ever seen. But the film features the kind of inconsistencies that many have leveled at GANGS, but they have been conveniently overlooked. For instance, it has been said that a number of the characters, particularly the younger generation, in GANGS are underdeveloped and uninteresting, but what about the chronic lack of virtually anything with which Faramir is introduced - the character is sketched so thinly, he can barely even fulfil a functional role. Also, the shorthand nature that the Aragorn/Eowyn relationship has been written with renders the bond that has apparently developed between them far less involving than it should be - I mean they have barely more than one speaking scene with which to forge this connection, and were it not for the performances of Viggo Mortensen and Miranda Otto, it probably wouldn't work at all. And though it may be an inevitable handicap to any narrative that cuts back and forth between multiple strands, some are always going to be more interesting than the others. I'm prepared to accept the fact that though I don't want to leave Helm's Deep for even a moment, it is neccessary to incoporate Merry, Pippin and the Ents, and Frodo, Sam and Gondor in the climax of the film, but pacing of the latter is so choppy that it seems to climax without natural build-up - though there have been hints prior in the film, when Frodo attacks Sam, it plays without sufficient motivation. It just feels to early for Frodo to break, not to mention that we get hardly a glimpse of or an insight into the conflict at Gondor to care what is happening there. But I'm not going to continue along this train of thought, because to me THE TWO TOWERS is still a great work, and these are minor quibbles when put in the perspective of everything the film does right. Plus, there's still a very good chance that some of these problems will be rectified in the inevitable extended cut on DVD. Also, I don't want to pit two very different films against each other (too late you might say!), but I don't think it unreasonable to draw attantion to the rabid intensity with which AICN publicly awaits these films, and the way that informs their viewing of them, when you then read a comparison as ridiculous as Harry's equating GANGS to Spielberg's HOOK. I believe that Harry was looking forward to GANGS, but not with anything approaching the kind of zest that he would THE LORD OF THE RINGS, STAR WARS or virtually any big-screen comic book adaptation, and so I feel justified in taking him to task when he writes so dispassionately about a film that I truly feel to be the best of a very great year. On this front, I can't pretend to be superior, for I have awaited GANGS like no other movie I can remember. I have worshipped Scorsese ever since I discovered his films when I was a teenager, and with the possible exception of Spielberg, no other filmmaker has had as profound an influence on my life. I have dreamed about seeing the film that was first announced before I was even born ever since it finally went into production. The postponements of the last twelve months have been agonizing, and so it is fair to say that the level of my expectation has significantly influenced my ultimate opinion of the film. Short of working on the thing myself, I can't imagine ever being closer to a film. Of course, the weight of such expectation could have gone the other way. GANGS had a lot to live up to, and had I have seen the film that Harry and Moriarty saw, the disappointment would have been so crushing as to be life-altering. So I hope that I have judged the film as fastidiously as possible, but feel free to draw your own conclusions. On to the film itself, and I think that part of the problem with regard to the mixed reception that the film has received is simply down to not looking at the film carefully enough. Now I don't know exactly what film they were expecting, but it appears as though the revenge stories of BRAVEHEART or GLADIATOR have been the main reference points, which, aside from the bombastic nature of the film's trailer, have never been anything that Scorsese has been interested in doing. Instead, and much like all of Scorsese's other films, GANGS is less concerned with narrative than with using the story as a way into exploring a strange and wild milieu. Scorsese's films basically break down into three categories; character studies (TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, THE KING OF COMEDY) and anthropological excavations (GOODFELLAS, THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, CASINO), and those that combine the two (MEAN STREETS, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, KUNDUN). The films stand as documents of times and places and the people that lived there. GANGS is no departure in this sense (it probably fits most comfortably into the second category), though it skirts nearer to mainstream devices than probably any of the other films. That is to say it uses achetypes; the wronged hero, the search for vengeance, the tart with a heart etc. That doesn't make them any less interesting, any less true or any less universal. For me, Amsterdam's story is a compelling if not particularly unique one, and it allows Scorsese the opportunity to cover the ground he wants to. And this is a crucial point: understand that he makes the films he wants to, not necessarily the ones you want. You may be more taken with a certain character, but its Scorsese's prerogative to shape his film according to his wishes. The appeal of GANGS that has endured through so many years is not to do with any one character (even one as colorful as Bill the Butcher) or element, but in depicting that time in New Yorks's history. Hence, the opening battle for control between the Nativists and immigrants as represented by the Dead Rabbits is the only way to begin a story that encompasses this turf war for territoriality and the wider fight of the Civil War. Both were founded in cultural conflicts that resonate today, and both were key in determining the foundation that the country was built upon. The story needs to reach the 1860s and the Draft Riots. Watching the film, I was reminded of the television broadcast a couple of years ago featuring Scorsese and Roger Ebert discussing their favorite films of the past ten years. Ranking high on Scorsese's list was Terrence Malick's masterful THE THIN RED LINE (the best film of the 90s in my opinion), his reasoning being that the film's greatness stems from its emphasis in exploring issues that extend beyond the natural parameters of the story, to question man's very place in the universe. As the riots swallow up the personal conflict between the Nativists and the dead rabbits, between Bill the Butcher and Amsterdam, GANGS takes on a parallel significance. As THE THIN RED LINE wondered why we are here, GANGS attempts to demonstrate how we are here. There is a very real sense of the inevitability of history that towers over events that is extremely powerful and provocative. It doesn't easily lend itself to cinematic convention; there is no cathartic satisfaction in the film's climax but rather a fued that now seems so small, so insignificant in the grand scheme, quietly settled with more split blood that will quickly disappear into the dirt. What is perhaps so overwhelming about both films is the way that they reduce man to such small proportions, yet are fascinated by the very nature of life. That is not to say that the film does not entertain, thrill and excite on the most basic levels. It does not need me to reiterate what a force of nature Daniel Day-Lewis is as Bill the Butcher, but I will anyway. This is the most memorable character to come along in quite some time. In fact, I was trying to remember when such a fascinating figure last appeared in movies and I couldn't. Day-Lewis doesn't just play this man, he lives him. You can barely see a trace of the actor underneath Bill's snarling veneer. I adored Day-Lewis in THE AGE OF INNOCENCE; it was one of the most subtly powerful and intense performances I can imagine, but that actor is nowhere to be found in GANGS. He can't be; it's just such a radical and fully realized depature, but equally great. If there is currently a better actor than Day-Lewis around (and when he might be around again is sadly anybody's guess), then I don't know of him. There is an electricity in the air every time he appears. His demonstration of how to kill with a knife on a pig carcass, his reminiscence of killing Priest Vallon after surviving an attempt on his own life, his hair-raising display of knife-throwing at Satan's Circus makes for absolutely scintillating stuff. But of course, everybody knows and acknowledges this. What is going underappreciated is the performance of DiCaprio. If Amsterdam is a less unique creation than Bill, then what did you expect. The film needs a character to counter Bill's theatricality, and DiCaprio delivers a wise portrayol that deals in quietness and calculation. It is not hard to see why Bill would embrace such an apparently devoted young man into his inner circle. Amsterdam has an intelligence foreign to the other petty hoodlums like Johnny or McGloin, but what is interesting is how Amsterdam begins to like it ("It's a funny feeling being taken under the wing of a dragon. It's warmer than you think.") The level of Amsterdam's feeling for Bill's tutelage is not made explicit, and is, for the most part, played as subtext. Consider his reaction after saving Bill from assassination at the theatre; are those tears for having taken a life unknown to him? Are they for keeping Bill alive? Are they for what he knows he must do? This is no unwavering, unquenchable thirst for revenge like that of the protagonists in the aforementioned BRAVEHEART or GLADIATOR, and this inner conflict is as intriguing as it is overlooked (or even unwanted?). Cameron Diaz is also really good here. In fact, if it were not for her fantastic turn in BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, I would be saying that this is career-best work. Yes, her character is the most broadly sketched, but it is still one with a great deal more substance than is typical. I like the way a sense of past stories and turmoils are hinted at without fanfare; the deliberate vagueness with which she describes her relationship with Bill, the baby that was "cut out", an pragmatic awareness of their place in the Five Points and the ramifications of the wider situation. Her affair with Amsterdam is also not clearly defined. Are they in love? Not necessarily. There is an obvious attraction, as seen in a terrific scene in which Amsterdam confronts her to get his stolen medal back, but if a love exists between them, then it is rather born out of need as much as anything else. The ambiguous and unsentimental nature of their relationship removes it far from the typical romances of most blockbusters. And if the film has a multitude of fantastic supporting characters, each brought to life by great actors (John C. Reilly, Liam Neeson, David Hemmings, an awesome Brendan Gleeson) then they only add to the flavor of the whole. The film is not perfect. I don't think that any film as ambitious as GANGS could be perfect, because it strives to achieve so much. But I know I would rather see a filmmaker throw caution to the wind and attempt the impossible than play safe, and, in some ways like APOCALYPSE NOW, I think that you have to accept its flaws as being integral to its greatness. Scorsese is on top form, though I don't subscribe to the school of thought that he has fallen from grace over recent years. With the passing of time and the further CASINO gets away from GOODFELLAS, the less it lives in its shadow and can be seen for the masterfully orchestrated opera it is. KUNDUN is a haunting, lyrical work that serves as a fine companion piece to THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, and those that ignorantly dismissed BRINGING OUT THE DEAD just didn't look hard enough at the film to appreciate the subtle re-examination of familiar Scorsese/Schrader themes. And if GANGS is not quite the career-crowning achievement many hoped for, it is, I believe, certainly among Scorsese's best films. Contrary to what a lot may think, the opening battle sequence works extremely well, including the music, which far too many have gotten hung up on. I don't think its about being purposefully jarring, distancing or an attempt to make one think that even now, in the age of rock, we still fight over the same things. I just think Scorsese wanted to use the piece for its energy. The electric guitar is far less pronounced than some say, and, if anything, has a tribal quality that somehow fits. As always, the work of regular Scorsese collaborators is first class, from Michael Ballhaus' cinematography and Thelma Schoonmaker's editing to Dante Ferretti's magnificent sets and Robbie Robertson's selection of source music. The film features many classic moments, even for the Scorsese canon; the walk up through the cavenous underground dwelling of the Dead Rabbits in the Old Brewery prior to their decisive battle with Bill's Nativists; the tracking shot that follows newly arrived immigrants from Ireland from an arriving ship, being signed up by the Union and being sent off to fight on another ship; the scene in Satan's Circus in which Bill, who now knows Amsterdam's true identity, first engages in a knife-throwing spectacle with Jenny before rumbling and torturing Amsterdam - "What'll it be? Rib or chop, loin or shank?" (this is one of the best sequences of sustained tension and drama Scorsese has ever directed and the best I saw all year); Bill killing Monk McGinn by throwing his cleaver into the turned back of the newly elected sheriff; the sheer scope of the Draft Riots and the unbearable sight of Union soldiers firing into the masses, the streets awash with blood. This is a genuinely great picture, but it may take the passing of some years before it is fully appreciated, and I think that a lot of people who have published their knee-jerk reactions to the film will come to reassess their opinion in due course, much like Kubrick's EYES WIDE SHUT, which is already enjoying something of a rethink among critical sectors, and regret the cursory glance they afforded the film at the time of release. Scorsese did not give up on this film, but a lot of other people evidently did. And for the record, my favorite Scorsese films are: 1/GOODFELLAS 2/THE AGE OF INNOCENCE 3/RAGING BULL 4/GANGS OF NEW YORK 5/TAXI DRIVER 6/MEAN STREETS 7/THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST 8/CASINO 9/THE KING OF COMEDY 10/THE COLOR OF MONEY
-
XTheCrovvX, Vallon DOES NOT kill Bill at the end. What he does is an act of mercy.
Alix, that Peter Gabriel orchestral rock track is what made that scene soar for me. It's my favorite track on the CD and SO perfect for the battle. Marty doesn't go for convention here and tries to create something unique and risky. Needless to say, it worked BIG time for me. Russian montage with dissolves, concentrating on the pain and agony instead of the striking and the stabbing. After the Chinese pagoda sequence, this was the best in the film. Best edited, most electrifying, shot after shot that had me holding my breath. It will be imitated by filmmakers for years to come. -
Thanks, man. I'm gonna frame that (after I cut out all the stuff about LOTR).
-
I don't think Harry and I saw the same film. I found the 'younger generation' neither lifeless nor uninspiring. Amsterdam comes to both love and hate the Butcher. Hell, Lewis plays the father figure for two-thirds of the film. In fact I think the major theme in the film is respect versus repulsion. The younger generation respects the honor and code of ethics of the older generation - we're talking REAL men here, who sacrificed life and limb for their beliefs, what's not to respect? At the same time, they detest the violence and 'king-of-the-hill' political posturing of men such as Tweed and Cutting.
-
I agree with Dickie Greenleaf and Trader Groucho - I do not get the hate for this film. There are flaws and absurd bits - but there are also the same in TTT, an equally sprawling and ambitious project, and nobody goes nuts about them. People are saying "It's a standard revenge story that doesn't play out right." I don't think it is a standard revenge story. All Amsterdam is is a focus for the audience to place them in the story, which is actually about a certain time and place in history. That's all. Bill is interesting because he is uncompromising and doomed, like the times and environment that spawned him. History and politics overtake the gangs, rendering their conflict moot. This is clearly foreshadowed in several speeches before the final battle, physically depicted during the battle, and re-emphasised with the changing cityscape and deteriorating graves at the end. The gangs are crushed by the formation of the state, effectively. Basically, I'm not sure it's necessary to empathize too much with Amsterdam - he's a Henry Hill in "Goodfellas" character - your guide to the milieu Scorsese is trying to illuminate. As for a film about the older characters, I'm not sure that it would work as well. The semi-mythic underpinnings that the conflict between Priest and Bill had is something I think that works better as back-drop, because it would be nearly impossible to execute convincingly - cutting out your own eye to prove a point to yourself really works better as a story related as opposed to one you actually see. I think that increasingly about the new SW. If this was a "disappointing" movie, then I'm stymied. I've seen much worse films this year.
-
I knew that it would suck hard from the first trailer. I spent my $5.50 matin
-
Jan 21, 2003 2:52:35 PM CST
There's already been enough Two Towers/Star Wars mentioned that
by glawen
... I couldn't resist posting this link:
http://www.theonering.net/movie/scrapbook/large/5879
Be honest? He suits that outfit much more than the talentless "actress" who wore it the othet night for the Globes. -
Jan 21, 2003 3:05:05 PM CST
Dickie Greenleaf: good post, I'm glad the movie moved you so dee
by bigw
I don't disagree that all the elements you describe are there, just that they are assemled so poorly that the seems are not just visible, they are a constant distraction. Instead of following the characters as they make their decisions, then have to live with the consequences, it felt as if both the characters an the audience were being rushed through plot points in a race through the money shots to get to a fight between Bill and Vallon. Perhaps if we'd been allowed more time with Vallon, we would have felt his turmoil more deeply: I want to kill this man for killing my father, but he's giving taken out of the gutter: doesn't that count for something? Nobody ever doubted for a second what his choice would be, as much as nobody understood why anyody working for Bill would ever changed allegiance and join Vallon. The result is that this film fails to soar to greatness, and, were it not for great acting and fantastic sets, it would simply be mediocre. As it is, it was good, and I enjoyed it, but no, I'm not going to go see this version of the film again, but if the cut that Scorcese wanted released is made available on DVD, I'll definately give it a go.
-
Jan 21, 2003 3:11:31 PM CST
Why not enjoy the superior 19th Century, New York, Daniel Day-Le
by alanpartridge
and watch the Age of Innocence instead. Fuck me, that's a great film. Showy at times - but Scorsese has to show his love for Powell and Pressburger at some point but with such understated dignity and poise that is constantly rocked with the smallest and subtlest glances... Essentially what if Mr Darcey was actually a bastard.
GONY was so misjudged. Narratively and aesthetically. At times it felt like a musical. Lavish production values and Cinecetta does not an 8 1/2 make. Some of the CGI was abysmal - the dockside boxing match and the elephant shout out as glaring miscalculations on Lucas-ian scale. We care little about the characters, yes indeed. So what do we care about? The sets, or a rather Old New York (as Edith Wharton says) in the aforementioned much better film. Just because one can does not mean one should. So a 'kicking beat' and crazy editing over the opening fight to draw in the kids sets a level that the film never reaches again - because the style is so different, and quite crass, and also gives an intensity that never really is matched. It's down here all the way - apart from Daniel Day-Lewis and even he lapsed into gangster-pastiche.
It is so lovely to see people spouting about Scorsese has made a fim about 'America'. That's right, because America is such a great country. Manifest destiny, my arse. Scorsese once made Taxi Driver, King of Comedy, Raging Bull - flawed masculinity that destroyed itself because society created something that couldn't exist stably. GONY has no flawed men - Bill is venerated for his sense of honour and justice - he still killed people. But that's ok cos its 'for history' is it? The characters weren't viewed critically - criticism was simply thrown in their general direction. The film, to my mind, had the ability to continue Scorsese's magnificent criticism of America. Instead he satirises corrupt politicians and elitist bourgeoisie while the end shot affirms that America is really 'OK'. Yes, the Twin Towers are there... Oh clever. Big deal - he's obviously not ignoring it - but neither is he placing us in a time before 9/11 - otherwise we shouldn't have seen them so prominently rhyming with the graves of Priest and Vallon. He's saying politicians maybe ok - but AMERICA is still ok, because we have the spirit of the US of A to see us thru. I never thought Scorsese would turn out propagand - but he's done. It was a sad day. -
Re: "Marty must've thought that if Harvey was making him cut some shit, that he might as well explain what was missing through tacked-on, pace-slowing narration." I really got that feeling as well. I also think my disappointment in the film may well have been the over-hyping of it.
-
Bill the Butcher would toss his blade in Darth Vader's back without giving it a second thought, then spit in his face...um, I mean mask! Bill would then pay a visit to Hannibal Lecter. He would first proceed to beat the wholly shit out of Hannibal, bite his nose off, then cut him ear-to-ear. After that, Bill would seek out the bully from the film Three O'Clock High and fuck him over something awful. As a final triumphant act of "bad-assness", Bill would visit the land of Mordor, single-handedly whipping every square inch of uruk-hai ass in all of Middle Earth! The character of Bill the Butcher Cutting is one badass MoFo.... ______"I don't see immigrants. I see tresspassers..."
-
Harry is mostly on the money here. I will openly say that I am anything but a fan of Dicaprio, in fact I was part of the minority that felt Titanic was pure drivel. He comes across to me as a Holywood pretty boy,
the type of so called actor I cannot stand.There are two kinds of actorsin Hollywood, the kind like Daniel Day Lewis, and the kind that magazines like People and shows like Extra shove in our faces on a daily basis like Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys. The kind of people who get critiqued by joan rivers on what
kind of outfit they wore to whatever meaningless flavor of the
week awards show they are going to. I'm a hardcore movie buff, and Hollywood has made me nothing but ill the last few years,with all the stuck up punks who don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as some of cinema's greats. Nothing Decaprio has done really
stuck out for me, except perhaps Romeo and Juliet. Although I still regard him as part of that
"manufactured" brand of Hollywood actor, I stood corrected on this film.Leo did a good job. Butand Daniel Day Lewis stole the show,
period. Why, because he's a different class of actor, one that's fading fast to make room for the likes of people such as Freddie Prinze JR who can do five meaningless movies a year. I apologize to the three people who enjoyed Summer Catch and Wing Commander. Anybody can get on camera and read lines, but when's the last time you watched a movie starring someone like Brad Pitt or George Clooney, and you felt youwere watching anything else but Brad Pitt or George Clooney playingthat character? Daniel Day Lewis became the character, and you forgot it was Daniel Day Lewis. Lewis's performance is what a good scorcese film is
all about, strong characterization, to the point where you like a very
evil person,but the rest of the performances in this film, while not terrible, were
overshadowed and sorely lacking the depth and quality of Lewis's
performance. I couldn't tell you that if they cast someone other than Dicaprio, that this film would be better. Perhaps Harry is right, and they should have made this a movie about Bill and the Priest. Harry is right to mention Goodfellas, because it was a good movie due to the fact
that every actor involved did a breakthrough performance.This was
partially because they are all phenomenal actors, but also in a movie like Goodfellas, you can clearly see that when Scorcese spends the time to richly develop
characters, it adds to the performance. Amsterdam and Jenny just werent fleshed out properly, and like Harry, I just kept waiting for all the Bill scenes. This wasn't a terrible movie by any means, but Scorcese clearly missed his mark on this one. I'll always like this movie for Lewis's performance,and the trademark attention to
detail that Scorcese brings to his films, but this movie was lackingin several areas, and it is why it is not going to make the kind ofbox office returns I'm sure the studio and the director had hoped to make. -
...by "the people that were really trying to create equality for all" portayed "as the bad guys," do you mean corrupt politicians like Tweed?
Lewis, I may be a smartass, but you're just an ass. Jimmy Spoils defends HIMSELF. Amsterdam and his gang beat up McGloin for Johnny's murder, not for a civil rights agenda. McGloin was emblematic of the city's Irish racism yet always had Bill there to remind him that he was an Irish n____r, keeping the cycle churning. Amid the racism, New York's Blacks and Irish actually lived together (there weren't any vacancies on 5th Ave.), so YOU read a book. I saw Adaptation tonight and, yes, the voiceover itself is mocked, but so is the guru declaring its "rules." It's his advice, taken to extremes then ignored altogether, that's responsible for that wretched attempt at irony in the third act. Adaptation is as overrated as Far From Heaven. Clever conceits, whoop-dee-friggin-doo. If Nic Cage didn't give the film its manic energy, I would have chewed through my box of popcorn. Actually, I don't eat popcorn, so I would have chewed through the fleshy part of my hand. Lewis, I leave you in the grace and favor of the Lord. -
Arnzilla - one of the ways i thought that soundtrack may really work was if the modern music was suggesting that this battle wasn't just of its period. That it was just as relevent to TODAY. The ancient type battle may have seemed a little distance from us if not for the juxtapose of the modern score!!
-
....cause in the flick I saw, Vallon was CLOSE to granting Bill some measure of mercy....then Bill said something to the effect of "Least when I die, I die a REAL american"...he laughs, he pisses Amsterdam off, he stabs the fucker dead...hence the screaming rage....not something you hear during a mercy killing, dont you think? Revolution is my name
-
Jan 22, 2003 7:43:04 PM CST
XTheCrovvX, I saw Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York, how about
by arnzilla
One of Marty's favorite films of the 90s was Heat. Scorsese has the two GONY protagonists holding hands at the end in much the same way. Bill wasn't laughing, but melancholy. Plus, look at Bill's rapturous facial expression and body language right after the stabbing, followed by the bukkake moment. Amsterdam got no pleasure, no release, from the stabbing, only Bill. That cry wasn't one of rage, but a bewailing. Why do you think he buried Bill right next to his father?
-
1.) GONY (this coming from an avid Tolkien fan) is the best film of 2002 that I've seen. I needn't elaborate without repeating what so many others have said before me.
2.) To the ass who spoke so ignorantly about the use of Hobbits in LOTR. Get a fucking clue. The Lord of the Rings is ABOUT hobbits, and the events surrounding their rise to prominence in Middle-earth. Reading the trilogy would relate this to you, and since that is something you have obviously not done, I might suggest you do so. And the film stays amazingly true to that: this story is about Hobbits, and centers around the journies of Frodo and Samwise. If you can't pick that out from the beginning, and are simply looking for these movies to entertain you...don't bother. -
You diss scorsese yet give tarrantino head, dumbass fat fu<k. Tarrantino is a fraud, kill bill looks like Enter the Dragon, wtf? Harry, you are becoming what i always hated about critics, pretentious. Yep ladies and gentlemen, meet the new Rex Reed.
-
First off I thought the GONY was a breathtakingly ambitious film, and eventhough in my opinion it did not achieve all of its aims, where it did suceed, it suceeded brillantly. I felt that the set design was both immersive and seamless, creating, or I should say recreating a world in painstaking three dimensional detail. From the cavernous and teeming Old Brewery, right down to the sqaulid common at the heart of the old Five Points nieghborhood, where pigs rooted in piles of refuse. The charectors were indelible, and lingered long in my memory as someone else has already pointed out in this forum. From Brendon Gleeson's Monk, the mercenary brawler turned shopkeeper and politician, to Jim Broadbent's gleefully larcenous Boss Tweed, DiCaprio's taciturn Vallon, and of course Daniel Day-Lewis's broodingly satanic Bill the Butcher. Notice that I haven't singled out Cameron Diaz, who I felt was horribly miscast as Jenny Everdeane, through no fault of her own, this one I lay squarely with Scorcese. I also thought though that many of the smaller parts were cast brillantly, and this has always been one of Scorcese's great strengths. I'll admit that it wasn't an "easy" film, and I say that without implying that those who didn't buy the whole premise are in anyway unitelligent. You either believed it or you didn't, and I feel there are ample grounds for both arguements. For myself I bought it in all its impefection and contradictions. Having said that I need to address something else, as far as I remember it from the history books, the Number One Enemy of African-Americans in 19th Century America were the Anglo-Protestant slave owners. As far as the racial atrocities committed (and they were horrific atrocities) by predominately Irish mobs during the Draft Riots, these same riots were put down primarily by an Irish-American police force, with the aid of locally drafted militia units, with a high proportion of immigrants, many of whom were also incidently Irish. Does this mitigate against the atrocities committed, no it does not! However what is also true is that many of the North's leading Abolitionists, including Henry Lyod Garisson, denounced the Irish as Papists from the same pulpits they used to rail against slavery. If you look at the political cartoons of that era, the Irish are everywhere carictured as violent, slobering, ape-like subhumans, an attitude that seems to live on in this forum. The hard truth was that Irish immigrants competed directly with African-Americans for the worst jobs in the worst nieghborhoods, while both were despised by the native born, White working class. The film shows this honestly I believe, as well as it does the gross ineqaulity of the draft. Inspite of this as far as I know thousands of Irishmen still shed their blood willingly on the fields of Fredericksburg and Antietam, and if the old photographs are to be believed, they did it in blue uniforms under the Stars and Stripes. Basically what I'm saying is that GONY sheds light on some ugly historical truths about the racial,religious, and ethnic divisions that still persist in this Young Republic of ours, and if you can't handle this without launching into some tired bullshit rant against the Irish, be a f***king man and take that shit to any f***king Irish Bar in NYC or Boston and see how long your bitch-ass lasts.
-
scroll.
-
Everyone else has posted opinions about "Gangs of NY." Perhaps I am so late that I'm the last one.
I found the film cartoonish, the characters one-dimensional, the events not believable. I was so bored that at one point I started counting the walkouts. This was opening day. There were about 60 of us in the large auditorium. Ten people walked out by the one-hour point. I should have been one of them, but I kept hoping it would get better. It didn't. Daniel Day-Lewis is interesting, but only when he is doing obvious DeNiro impressions. Leo is in over his head. Miss Diaz looks so Malibu 2002 with her perfect skin, perfect teeth, perfect hair. I didn't believe she was a New York hooker circa 1863 for anything. It's a good thing we don't have an Oscar category for dialect coaches yet. -
Number one, your the dimwit motherfucker that went and ripped off your name from a third rate comediac hack. Number two, the Black charector in GONY was introduced as a thug among other thugs, and if memory serves me correctly he first appears when he is trying to mug DiCaprio's charector with the aid of another thug who is Irish, all of this notwithstanding the fact the Vallon is Irish himself, which appears not to make one wit of difference to either the Black or Irish thug as they try to roll his fucking ass. Later all three go on to join a likeminded gang of thieves serving under the biggest thug in the Five Points, who is of course Day-Lewis's Bill the Butcher, a native born Anglo-Protestant. The point being that none of them were particularly endearing charectors, and Scorcese to his credit does not shrink from that. He then illustrates at the end of the film that the Black gangmember, inspite of his loyalty to Vallon and the Dead Rabbits is mindlessly butchered by an Irish mob during the Draft Riots solely because he is Black. Scorsese also clearly sets up the social context of the riots, the resentment of improverished Irish immigrants who cannot afford to buy their way out of the draft, and who turn their rage on native born African-Americans, who were visibly not subject to the draft on the account the endemic racisim of most Northerners, who would not for the most part even allow them to fight on their own behalf, as is illustrated vivdly in the film Glory about the all-Black, 54th Mass. Regiment. Equally GONY also documents the class aspects of the riots, when the mob is shown attacking the wealthy and well dressed who could presumably afford the $300 exemption from the draft, as they were easily replaced by a pennyless immigrant just off the boat who could die in their place, or just as easily lose their limbs and spend the rest of their lives as fucking beggars. So you know what you fucking hack, forgive me if I don't share your righteous fucking rage other the fact that among the many thugs Vallon befriended in this picture, one of them was depicted as an African-American.
-
Jan 25, 2003 4:59:22 AM CST
Problem: Lewis Black has Arnzilla under his skin. Solution: go t
by arnzilla
My name derives from "Villa Arzilla." No need to discuss what occurred there. How about yours? Was Jon_Stewart already taken?
Soooo... because he didn't lynch any Blacks, Amsterdam wasn't racist? Hmmmm... Bill didn't lynch any Blacks either. In fact, he invited a Black prostitute to his party, so I guess he was a civil rights advocate too, eh?Amsterdam's racial feelings were a bit more casual, namely in his characterization of the Chinese and in his feelings toward Protestants.
Yes, many immigrants refused to work on the docks or in the factories with Blacks, but the film is about the underworld, or didn't you notice? JJacq said it quite well. Amsterdam was a thief and a bookie, and hung out with other thieves and bookies. Jimmy Spoils was one of them. But it was the working class who were led to believe that one freed slave equalled one more Irish job lost. "Living and working in perfect harmony?" Hehehehehe... you're a silly tool, Lewis, but a fine Coke jingle writer. We're talking about criminals, so maybe you need to stick a bright yellow post-it on your monitor just to remind you. Remember Stacks Edwards in Goodfellas? Same thing here. -
Bill never vocalized his hatred of black people, just for Lincoln and the Union. His use of the N word was always in reference to the Irish. It was the Irishman McGloin who vocalized it as much as Pino in Do The Right Thing, He hated Blacks like you hate civility, Lewis. I wonder if it bothers you that the people who helped Blacks during the riots had the same ethnic roots as those who tortured and lynched them? It probably does. You like your racism with clear-cut delineations, like roadmaps. Shades of gray disinterest you, unless it's your socks, of course.
-
GANGS OF NEW YORK is a masterpiece. It's a watershed event for Scorsese. The only gripe I have about it is that some of the events in the third act were rushed over too quickly; the presence of Weinstein's editing cleaver was apparent. DDL's Bill the Butcher is one of the most memorable cinematic concoctions of all time. This film represents a culmination of the themes (morality, revenge, honor, integrity) that Marty has dealt with throughout his career. This is the kind of epic filmmaking that people will yearn for in twenty years when nearly all of the Hollywood milieu's will be CGI-superficial. I am completely enamored with every single bloody frame of this film. I have one question for Harry: have you seen New York New York!?! If so, I'm shocked that you feel GANGS is Marty's worst film.
-
You bring up a great point with the idea that the older generation is so much more interesting than the younger, who really gives a fuck about the youngsters at 5 points. But, the idea that young Vallon doesn't show what he wants in his future makes sense to me. He spent 16 years in hell, with his last sight of the outside world being the murder of his father. Do you think he's going to farming? And his dad wasn't a priest it was his nickname. But ya, his relationship with Jennie definetely lacked.
-
Talk about shooting your integrity in the foot. Hollywood is embracing this movie for the same reasons that led to Julia Roberts and A BEAUTIFUL MIND getting Oscars. Opie deserved an Oscar and so does Marty -- what's he got coming out.
I can't help but believe that the final shot has some of the weak minded a little weapy about the film at the end.
I just got to the two hour point in this movie and realized I didn't care how it turned out. When you've sat through two hours and don't care anymore, there is something fundamentally wrong with the story. The characters are almost too great - they each demand their own piece of the pie - and the revenge story (which is what this movie is supposed to be about) is so aimless at times.
If there is a four hour cut lying around somewhere, that's great, because at least that means there's a CHANCE that Scorcese tried to put this thing together in a sensible way. There are holes galore that had me sprinting from the movie theater. -
After seeing this movie, I somehow felt unsatisfied. I mean, I had just seen a film with great visuals from one of my favorite directors, but something was lacking. After reading your review I know exactly what it was: the movie was missing a heart. It's like you said, it felt like Scorsese just gave up on this one at some point. There's no real emotional investment in the characters and most of the time you just couldn't care less. The main narrative of Amsterdam wanting to revenge his father by killing Bill just seemed like a device to show us this ancient New York of days gone by, ruled by ruthless gangs and corrupt politicians. The most interesting characters were the least developed, leaving the viewer frustrated for having to see another romantic scene between Amsterdam and Jenny. I *really* hope we'll get to see a director's cut release on dvd where all these great stories and characters get the attention they deserve. Harry, thank you for your eye opening review, it was right on spot, as usual.
-
Feb 05, 2003 12:59:32 AM CST
An average movie made above average by DAY LEWIS'S performance
by theoldirtymick
the movie would've sucked without that guy.
What a bad ass.
Maybe my favorite performance ever.
Maybe.... -
if day-lewis is so great why couldnt he maintain an american accent
-
I think gangs of new york was a good movie that actually had some balls! I felt for every character and their story, hell i was loving bill the butcher and couldnt decide wether he was a bad guy, with all that said i agree there were some characters that lacked presence but overall that movie just kicked major glutius maximus!!!
-
And it was magnificent. I am so glad that I didn't listen to the naysayers and saw this thing on the big screen. But then again, I love huge historical epics; as with any genre YMMV. Toppu o Nerae!
-
I respect Goldman for what he's done in the past but when I read his spiel I expected him to actually have some valid criticisms of GONY .. so where exactly are they?
It takes too long for the Amsterdam/Bill confrontation to play out? I don't agree with that for the simple reason that it's a reflection of the times and the acknowledgement of who these people are. Everything they are about concerns adherence to archaic notions of honor and formality (and not light years removed from the creed of the characters in Scorsese's 'wiseguy' epics that all seem to know and love so well - me included). Remember that when Amsterdam delivers his ultimate challenge to Bill - and said challenge is accepted - representatives of all the gangs gather before-hand in a council to negotiate the terms via which the coming challenge will be fought. I loved how Bill wistfully acknowledged Amsterdam's sense of honor when he repudiated the use of firearms in the engagement, like the master dipping his lid to the apprentice, well-taught. Two characters bent on exterminating each other but not so impolite that they would stoop to simply blowing each other way with a blast of shot. After all, where would the honor be in that? An alien mindset in contemporary terms to be sure, but truthful to the times in question. This is after all a slow dance of death, it ain't 'wham, bam, thank you m'am!'
I don't think the film is perfect but I find too many criticisms to be too histrionic to accept.And while I would have preferred other lesser-profiled actors in the parts played by Leo di Caprio and Cameron Diaz I don't think that they were remotely as bad as some people have suggested here. It's a reflection of big money movie-making. And yes, as others have said, it's a compromise Scorsese was forced into in order to make the film he has so desperately wanted to make for all these years.
After reading all the negative press around this film I was expected to be thoroughly disheartened ... yet I wasn't. Not in the least. I haven't thought about rating the movie with respect to all the other Scorsese films that I do consider to be truly great works. Frankly I'm not really interested. I appreciated where Scorsese took me with the film. I've longed to see the kind of warts 'n all historical epic which Scorsese endeavored to provide with 'Gangs'. Ambitious, stylised and operatic to be sure, but by no means the bloated catastrophe that some would pass it off as. When the dust finally settles a more definitive cut of this film will surface - one that hopefully will go some way to fulfilling the expectations of so many who felt disappointed by the cinema version. Remember the butchered cinema release of Sergio Leone's 'Once Upon a Time in America', kids? This shit happens all the time. I expect Scorsese will survive it. -
GONY is the worst movie I have watched this year. This is not what I expected from a maestro like Scorsese and his trio of expert screenwriters, Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan. Anyway, we should have seen it coming guys: its as soggy as The age of innocence (Martin you aint no Ivory-Merchant) and confussing and pointless as Bringing out the Dead (a sign that you were losing your touch Mr.Scorsese).
What I hated about this movie is precisely that it was a high profile project, it took ages to come to the screen, it costed millions and toyed with our expectations for quite sometime...and what we got?
A "Titanic without the boat" storyline, cartoonish characters like the lead performers, a waste of great talent (art direction, supporting characters, costume), no dramatic weight, no thrills, a disparate soundtrack (ditching Elmer Berstein was no good idea in the end), no character development, the movie was joyless, in a nutshell a disaster. It is supposedly an epic, but its cinematography screams :i was shot in an italian soundstage! (it pales in comparison with The two towers, a real epic). Scorsese could not even afford to kill Dicaprio in the end (after all the violence surrounding him, gosh!)...so now he even has become crowdpleasing!!!.
Far and away of Howard, was more fun than this movie.
If Scorsese gets the Oscar for this, it will be as a recognition of his brilliant body of work ( of which Raging Bull is the crown jewel and unjustly not recognized), but well, it would not surprise me in a time where Ron Howard is awarded for a cable-like movie like A beautiful mind, or Russel Crowe is awarded for the stark performance he delivered in Gladiator.
GONY was a must-see spectacle that never delivered. -
GANGS OF NEW YORK is not one of Scorsese's best, but I'll take sub-par Scorsese over the best that the blowjob hacks have to offer!
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