User Reviews (1,301)

Add a Review

  • Gangs of New York was is an epic historical crime movie directed by Martin Scorsese and stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz, Jim Broadbent, John C. Reilly, Henry Thomas, Brendon Gleeson, Stephen Graham and Liam Neeson in a special appearance.

    The movie is a must watch classic which displays the birth of America and yes through bloody violence and brawls.

    The movie displays the greatnesses of Martin Scorsese and his imagination and scope to take out the best from a simple revenge plot.

    Acting should be appreciated by all the characters but Daniel Day-Lewis steals the show by his brutal violence in a gentle way.

    The screenplay of the movie is slow but captivating and hold the viewers. Location of 1840 America is amazing and background music is good. It wouldn't be wrong to say that this is one of the finest piece of work by Martin Scorsese and a must watch for the viewers who like periodic movies.
  • It's so true what people say, that Daniel Day-Lewis doesn't act. He *becomes* the characters he portrays. It's simply astounding to see an interview with the soft-spoken, somewhat effeminate actor and then watch him as the terrifying, dominating Butcher in this, or Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood. Watch Gangs of New York for his performance alone and you won't be disappointed. That isn't to say the story isn't intriguing (it is) or Leo isn't good (he is) but really, Day-Lewis stole the show outright.
  • "Gangs of New York" takes us back to a time when America was a young country and New York was divided. Those who felt they were "native" Americans did not want immigrants to enter their great country, spawning hatred between groups all over the city where many of them landed. In the story we see how much of the town is run by one man, with William Cutting ("Bill the Butcher," played marvelously by Daniel Day-Lewis) being the most feared and well-respected man of the "five Points."

    Leonardo DiCaprio plays Amsterdam Vallon, who as a boy watched Bill the Butcher kill his father in one of the Points' great battles. Now a grown man, he returns to the Points to find Bill pretty much running the show. He gets on Bill's good side and eventually becomes his number one man, all the while still plotting for his father's revenge.

    While there is a lot of gratuitous violence and gore, the film does an excellent job portraying life as it was in New York. You can be sucked in to the time of the movie, and even though the setting is much before our time you don't need a textbook to understand how things were run and what life was like.

    I've never been a big DiCaprio fan, but his effort here (along with his performance from "Catch Me If You Can") have made my opinion start to waver a little. He is good as Amsterdam, and believable in his actions and expressions. Daniel Day-Lewis is simply phenomenal as Bill the Butcher and really should have won the Best Actor Oscar. Overall, I feel this was the best film of 2002 and really was robbed at the Academy Awards.

    8 out of 10.
  • Gangs of New York is just perfect entertainment. It is an enthralling, bloody, melodramatic epic that more than justifies its two and one half hour running time. In Gangs director Martin Scorsese spins another tale of the New York underworld but with a twist. Instead of the mid-twentieth century organized crime milieu of Goodfellas, Scorsese ventures back to the 19th century to show us the origin of the modern street gang.

    It's the early 1860s and the notorious Five Points slum is ruled by the savage `Bill the Butcher'. The viciously nationalistic Bill terrorizes all the immigrant masses jammed into his slum but seems to harbor a particular hatred for the Irish population. Into this seething cauldron wanders mysterious young Amsterdam Vallon who soon works his way into the trust and affection of Bloody Bill. Amsterdam, however, has a past with the unsuspecting Butcher and sports an agenda not unlike a certain Prince of Denmark. Bloody vengeance and dark betrayal soon come to pass, all played against a backdrop of corruption and unrest that lead to up to the horrors of New York Civil War draft riots.

    Daniel Day-Lewis is marvelous as Bill the Butcher. His Bill is both recognizably human and a full bore, moustache-twirling villain. Day-Lewis strides his savage and profane way across the screen and steals the whole of the movie. The only other actor to approach Day-Lewis' level is Jim Broadbent as William 'Boss' Tweed. Broadbent is Tweed's spitting image and he makes the grasping old pirate so winning we find ourselves rooting for Tweed against the gaggle of reformers that infest his domain. Though Leonardo DiCaprio is the nominal lead of the picture he is overshadowed by his co-stars. Large, slope shouldered and vaguely brutish looking, DiCaprio is physically perfect for Amsterdam. While he could have used some of the fire and rage of a young James Cagney, DiCaprio's acting is superior throughout the movie. The problem is that Amsterdam just isn't as flashy a role as Bill or Tweed and, as good as DiCaprio is; Day-Lewis operates on a whole other level. Cameron Diaz as the beautiful pickpocket Jenny, never convinces that she is a product of the slums. Despite having considerable screen time, Diaz fades into the background when compared to her more powerful co-stars.

    Just as important as the actors are to Gangs is the period atmosphere that drips off the screen. The amazing old New York set has an air of lived in reality that you could cut with a knife. You can almost smell the vermin. Gangs is entirely free of the embalmed feeling you get from most modern period movies. The cast handles the period argot as if it were their true speech and wear their costumes like lived-in clothing. You come away convinced that this is how the world looked and sounded in 1862.

    Scorsese does eschew all nuance and subtlety in Gangs. Instead he tells his tale in wide, bold, exploitive and melodramatic strokes that make the movies two and a half hours fly by. Be warned that if you are waiting to see Gangs on DVD you are making a huge mistake. Gangs has to be seen at the theater. The detail and scope of the film cries out to be viewed in all its wide screen glory. This movie is a fantastic achievement.
  • For about three months now, I have (on an almost daily basis) passed a movie theatre not far from my home. On the side of this movie theatre is a huge poster advertising the movie "Gangs of New York". Meanwhile, all I heard about on television was the buzz about the upcoming "Gangs of New York". So, when this highly publicized movie finally opened, I went and saw it.

    I went to the theatre, I bought my ticket, I found a seat in a very crowded theatre and I sat. For three hours I sat in that dark theatre and I watched what was one of the most amazing movies I have ever had privilege to see.

    It is hard to even begin to explain why this movie was amazing, but it was. The way it was shot is brilliant. The cinematography is spectacular. The story is completely enthralling.

    Although the movie was just shy of three hours long, it was not at all boring to watch. The story was captivating and although I knew how it was going to end (because, after all, it is a movie based on a true-ish story), it was incredible to watch how it got that end.

    Above all, the movie was beautiful to watch. I have to admit to those who have not yet seen it that "Gangs" is quite violent. However, the violence was well shot and it was fairly necessary to the story.

    All of the actors put in extremely good performances. Leonardo DiCaprio really proved that he's not just a pretty face and that he does actually have a great deal of talent (which can also be seen in his other movie of the season, "Catch Me If You Can"). Cameron Diaz' performace also proves that she can do much more than the standard romantic comedy. Also, after hearing reports of Daniel Day Lewis' REALLY getting into his character, I admit that it was completely worth it. His character (William Cutting/Bill the Butcher) is so complex and although you know you hate him, you can't decide why (for there are so many reasons).

    In conclusion, if you have not seen this movie yet, go. Go now. See it. This is one of the epic movies of our time. I heard that Scorcese has been conceptualizing this movie for over twenty years; I could tell. The story this movie tells is one that I had never heard and the way in which it was told makes it seem very important for us to know. The message that is conveyed, although not an entirely wholesome one, is an important one to learn and, if considered, is very relevant to our time. However, my only message to you is this: see this movie.
  • Gangs Of New York is a solid action crime drama from director Martin Scorcese who continues to show his skill as a filmmaker with this film. The cast are admirable in their roles including Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day Lewis, and Cameron Diaz. DiCaprio is great as Amsterdam Vallon a man seeking revenge against the one who killed his father. DiCaprio may not have the flashier role like Day Lewis but he's still believable as the hero bringing that intensity he's been know for to the character. Daniel Day Lewis gives a knock out performance as Billy "The Butcher" Cutting a psychotic gangland kingpin who killed Amsterdams father. Day Lewis is terrific in the role of a man whose willing to kill anyone without hesitation. The people are either with him or against him there is no middle ground. Cameron Diaz is good as Jenny Everdeane a woman willing to do almost anything to survive and a potential love interest for DiCaprio's Amsterdam. John C Reilly, Jim Broadbent, Bredan Gleason, Henry Thomas, and a brief appearance by Liam Neeson are effective as the supporting characters but most of them don't have much to do and aren't in it much either. All of them still turn in solid performances none the less in their limited screen time. Most of the movie takes place in New York during 1863 when one of the worst riots in American history took place. The fact that this really did happen gave the movie a realistic fool especially the location where they chose to have this film take place giving audiences a look at what it could've been like back then in New York. The action sequences which mostly involve people getting beat up in brutal ways are well executed especially the riots at the end. The showdown between Amsertdam and Bill was a bit of a letdown but it was fitting for the movie. The film was a bit long with a running time of 167 minutes. The pacing was a little slow at times but the performances by the cast make it worth watching anyway. Despite some flaws Gangs Of New York is still a well made crime drama with enough action, some suspense, a little humor and romance. So if you can get past the long running time Gangs Of New York is definitely worth watching and most of that besides what I already mentioned is because of the exceptional performances (especially Day Lewis and DiCaprio) by the lead actors and the amazing talent of Scorcese who continues to prove himself as a gifted filmmaker with this movie. Well done.
  • So narrates Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) standing by the boss Bill the Butcher's side (Daniel Day-Lewis) at the height of his hard-boiled reign over New York City in the mid-1800's. Amsterdam saw the Butcher brutally kill his father in a gang-war when he was just a little boy, and he's sworn revenge ever since. But in order to get his vengeance, he must infiltrate the Butcher's gang, and ends up becoming something of a son to him.

    That "Gangs of New York" is such a good film is a mystery because it breaks the fundamental rule of good film-making: you have to care for the central character, and DiCaprio's Amsterdam is an unlikeable young man. He is surly and unkind, walking around in a bubble of hesitation and scattered thoughts of revenge. He moodily snarls at the one woman he likes (Cameron Diaz). It is inconceivable how someone as dynamic, likable and strong as the Butcher would ever take this brat in, but that's film for you.

    The above is an unfortunate miss; the lead character has to be strong or else the film will weigh him down. Juxtaposing Dicaprio with Day-Lewis has got to be the worst idea that's ever popped into Scorsese's mind because it is evident within minutes of the film that they are of very different acting fibre and the former will look even WORSE when paired with one of the best working actors in the world today. But these are mere casting flaws (but still harmful), so onto the overall direction:

    A friend of mine once said that Martin Scorsese is only capable of half a film before it turns into a mess and that stuck with me when I watched "Gangs of New York", because it was true. This is a relatively straightforward story of revenge but it is diluted by detours in Irish traditions – there's singing, dancing, bareknuckled fighting, drinking and debauchery--for 2 and a half hours. These detours may be well sewn-together by a patient Scorsese narrative flow (I'm thinking "Casino") told by Amsterdam, but is unnecessary to go to such lengths to get the Irish-immigrant setting and mood. We already got it, so move on and give us more substance.

    However it cannot be denied that many of these detours make the film and setting – they are beautifully illustrated by lush colours that seem to bleed off screen–primary colours to suit primary, instinct-driven and hard-boiled men. The cinematography is just staggering. New York City is gritty, corrupt, bloody and bare-knuckled. I mean, I have seen Tarantino, Stone, Kramer and Cronenberg but this is by far the most violent and gory film I have ever watched. Such poignant, effective fights.

    It is a shame the rest of the film is not as poignant, but desperately diluted. What saves it is Day-Lewis' magnificent presence on-screen as the brutal Butcher Bill, the occasional portrayals of gang-culture and the almost all-star ensemble cast that pop up in supporting roles throughout. A good film (just barely), but nothing more. "7" may be too generous, but hey...

    7/10
  • Daniel Day-Lewis elevates this film from just "good" to "very good" or even "excellent." He is absolutely riveting, one of the most interesting "villains" I have ever seen on film. I am sorry Day-Lewis didn't win the Academy Award for his performance. He was just outstanding to watch. His facial expressions alone cracked me up!

    Day-Lewis played "Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting" he is one nasty dude. However, there are no real "good guys" in this story. The supposed hero, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is a revenge-seeking man with a ton of flaws himself. The rest of the characters are either thieves, gang members, corrupt politicians or corrupt policeman. Ah yes, another family-oriented film from that kindly director Martin Scorcese.

    What Scorcese lacks in family values, he comes close to making up for in style. This is another fascinating visual film with great sets, costumes, color and camera-work. Other typical Scorcese touches are in here: Catholic-bashing and brutal language. (I question whether the f-word was used back in the days this film takes place.)

    All in all, a tough film that could be too unpleasant to watch but for Lewis' outstanding performance and the spectacular visuals.
  • I am a Civil War "buff," so I wanted to see this movie the moment I heard it was being made. Yes, the New York Draft Riots did happen, just two weeks AFTER the Northern victory at Gettysburg, demonstrating that the outcome of the War was anything but certain, even after Lee had been forced to retreat to the south bank of the Potomac River. Today, many would find this surprising.

    The movie did take some license, however. There was no wholesale firing on civilians by Union soldiers. In fact, reported deaths after three days of rioting were less than one-hundred. Many of the dead were randomly selected blacks, who were hanged and mutilated (which was accurately depicted in the film). Today, many would also find this surprising, because the schools teach that the North was good, and the South was bad. The truth is that blacks were subjected to inhumane treatment everywhere, especially in the Nothern cities.

    There was also no firing by offshore naval vessels. That was artistic license. (My source for all of the above is a doctoral dissertation that was published about ten years ago titled "The New York City Draft Riots.")

    The movie makes the important point that the North had run out of "home grown" manpower to fight the South. Had it not been for Irish and German volunteers through 1863, and black volunteers in 1864, the North would have sued for peace. The 1864 Democratic Platform promised to bring the War to a swift and speedy conclusion.

    Bravo to Scorsese for bringing all of this to light. In the meantime, the movie is about twenty minutes to long. The brothel scenes, the "uptown" scenes, and some of the scenes in the catacombs struck me as slow and superfluous. On the other hand, the street scenes and the scenes of the random gangs (of which I wish there were more) were glorious.

    One thing Scorsese left out, however: The mountains of animal and human waste in the streets! Not long after his movie was released, the History Channel produced a documentary on the Five Points area, and it is staggering to consider the tons and tons of animal and human waste piling up in the streets, and the thousands of gallons of urine running in the gutters. There were old photos of waste in the streets stacked six feet high. Needless to say, infant mortality in such a fetid environment was about 50%. Scorsese leaves this out, and there is scarcely a horse in the movie.

    Day-Lewis does a superb job with a character that is unevenly developed. He is a homicidal thug in the beginning, a menacing, but somewhat benign, presence in the middle, and a psychotic killer in the end. It isn't really clear why he vacillates the way he does. Bi-polar, I guess. DiCaprio proves he can act, and he exudes a manliness he did not possess in earlier films. Diaz turns in a creditable performance. The cast of thousands adds a nice touch to the film.

    I would never say this is a "great" film, but it certainly is worth a look. Kudos to Scorsese for the herculean effort, and a tip of the kepi for the poetic ending, which reminded me of the ending in 1936's "San Francisco."
  • Well, I just got back from seeing "Gangs of New York" at the theater, and I have many positive things to say about this film. It's easily the most powerful film I've seen this year, even topping the excellent "White Oleander". I have never seen a film portray poverty in the 1800's as well as this film did. It also made me feel like I was there, witnessing the poverty and brutality. It's a film that makes us be thankful that times like those have passed, and for us not to forget those who lived and died during those times. It's also a film that's not afraid to show war in its total uglyness. Martin Scorsese definately got his point across with this film, but he didn't do it alone. The cast were all excellent in their parts, no bad acting here at all. Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz showed they are more than just pretty faces. Daniel Day-Lewis was magnificent as "The Butcher", a character whom you want to both love and hate. Quite simply the best film I've seen all year, and I hope it will get nominated (and win) many Oscars. Even if it doesn't, it's a true winner in my eyes. Nice to see that Hollywood can actually do something useful with a $100million budget for once. This was playing at the theater the same time as "The Two Towers"... unfortunately, most of the people in the long line-up went to see "TTT"... they sure missed out, since GONY has more to say in the first 10 minutes than LOTR has to say over 3 hours. Although this film is rather long (2 hrs 47 mins), I was so provoked by it that the time flew by. "Gangs of New York".... A film that's not to be missed!!

    10/10 - Higly reccomended!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm not exactly sure whether this should have been a film or a mini-series, either way, I am left with the felling that I've missed something. Yes, there where great actors, a great director, props, costumes, so on and so forth... but where is the glue that holds it all together? At a distance, it is the story of a boy seeking vengeance for the murder of his father and the inhumane treatment of his countrymen, yet it is also about war, racism, poverty, romance, and the list just goes on and on. I understand the significance of all of these factors, but I want vengeance. Did I want to watch two and a half hours of him climbing up the social ladder, just to fall all the way off, then two seconds of vengeful fury? Not really.

    It is the kind of film that a remote control was made for. I am not saying at all that it was bad, I just lost interest. Yes, anticipation is what the audience needs to so they will be captivated, but when the story is all over the place and the original plot gets lost in the mix, it's just disappointing. I also have to ask, what happened to the countrymen? That was the cause that his father gave his life for, so why isn't as equally important to the son? Of course he had to shame the Irish to get close to the enemy, but there were no personal signs that he even cared about his countrymen, save for a mumble here or there and a donation to a homeless man. It lacked the spirit and enthusiasm to go with the overall drama and action.
  • I had to watch this movie for a history project and was not expecting to be very entertained, but I was very surprised. The characters are all very unique and no one is at all boring. Daniel Day-Lewis' character of Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting is the highlight of this film. He is not a good guy, but Day-Lewis plays him so well that you can not help but focus on him in a scene. This movie gives insight into the Draft Riots in New York and all the gang violence in the Five Points district. Leonardo DiCaprio's character, Amsterdam Vallon, is a young man driven by the murder of his father. He is the main character and he narrates the movie. His father had belonged to a prominent gang but due to his death the gang disbanded. There are now several gangs that occupy the Five Point district of New York and this causes a lot of violence. This movie shows the violence between these gangs and shows Amsterdam's journey of revenge against Day-Lewis' character. This movie has it all, violence, drama, action, romance, and even a bit of comedy. I will not spoil anything so I will end with this, it is a very good movie and worth the watch :)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    " What did you think of Gangs Of New York ? " I asked my father who is also a big Scorsese fan .

    " I thought it was a load of " ££$%^^$"£* £$% " he replied " The actors looked like they were all going to burst out singing "

    I could see where he was coming from although I didn't disagree with him 100 % . GANGS OF NEW YORK had some really extreme opinions from its audience ,a point reflected in the comments thrown at it on this site .I didn't think it was as bad as my dad made out but like I said I could seewhere he was coming from

    My major problem with the movie is the screenplay . The opening shot sees Bill " The Butcher " Cutting kill Priest Vallon in front of his son who runs away swearing revenge for his dead father . From that point onwards we know that the story will end years later with a confrontation between the two protagonists so there's no more dramatic twists for the story to take . Actually this in itself isn't too bad but what spoils the story is the way it's held up with the character interaction between Amsterdamn and Jenny Everdeane . Scorsese doesn't do romantic interlude very well and this movie proves it . In amongst this diversion there's something of a plot hole since Bill takes the young Amsterdamn under his wing even though he knows who he is . If you bumped off someones father in a street fight would you adopt their kids ? I didn't think so

    This could have been an absolutely brilliant script and it is very good in places where we see how the gangs are structured , their ethnic mix and their political affiliations - Some are protestant with members who were born in America , some are catholic with many members born in Ireland , all are anglophobe and they all hate each other . We also see one of the most cynical episodes in American history where immigrants getting off ships at New York are immediately conscripted into the Union army unless they pay 300 dollars which eventually leads to the draft riots . When the movie concentrates on these parts of the plot it's a great film but becomes heavily bogged down by the character subplots

    If Scorsese had directed this 20 years ago with a fraction of the budget he had here this could have been his masterwork but he seems to have overawed by riches . Everything is just a bit too grandiose and operatic to be entirely convincing . Charles Dickens had visited the five points and is recorded as saying it was the worst place on Earth . Scorsese makes the streets a little too clean , a little too Hollywood grunge , a little too glamorous in spite of everything . Leonardo Dicaprio is a very underrated actor held back by his startling good looks but he's wrong as Amsterdamn and wasn't right for the part which should have gone to an unknown . Cameron Diaz is totally unconvincing as Jenny and Scorsese could have easily given the part to a real life NY hooker while Daniel Day Lewis gives a powerhouse performance as Bill Cutting , however the role is slightly overplayed especially compared to Lewis's other work

    Indeed everyone involved in GANGS OF NEW YORK in whatever capacity has done far better in other movies and at the end of the day this is a very unsatisfying flawed picture which received more nominations than it did prizes at award ceremonies , and I'm somewhat happy about that because this movie isn't a crowning achievement for anyone , especially Martin Scorsese or Daniel Day Lewis who are capable of better things

    Seven out of Ten.
  • The performance of Daniel Day-Lewis stands out from what is a seriously flawed movie. Leonardo DiCaprio is seriously miscast,the story is hardly inspiring and the film suffers from problems with continuity. All of the cast look far too well fed and healthy to be the poorest of the poor - and did they really live in subterranean dwellings that look like caves? Scorsese is a great director but his preoccupation with the low life seems morally repugnant here. Historical accuracy goes out the window as the gang members are portrayed in a semi-heroic light. The love interest grafted on in the shape of Cameron Diaz is pathetic. A lot of praise has been heaped on the film's attention to period detail and there are indeed some interesting observations - I particularly liked the 'Allsorts' barrel in the bar wherein all the slops are thrown to provide a cheap drink. However it was impossible to avoid the impression that you were simply watching a crowd of extras parading around a large film set in period costume. Every scene was laid on with a trowel.
  • You'd think Scorcese has bitten a bit more than he could possibly chew, this time. Well, he didn't. Gangs of new York is not an "epic masterpiece" and it ain't that because I seriously doubt the directors aim was that. It's a great movie in it's own account, but you have to watch it in the right way.

    The plot: Tight enough and well paced, with a couple of lows (expected for a three-hour film) but generally it comes out pretty neat. Some may find it disturbing, as it contains extreme violence and it does not portray an America of happy workers, even happier slaves, benevolent rich and just authorities - instead, it portraits the true 1860 society. Definitely not for those who like their films with plenty of sugar on the top.

    The epic and the drama: Well, basically the film is the story of two men. Around them things evolve and a brave new world comes forth - but we only get to watch snapshots of that world. Until the last sequence, that is when the whole city "explodes" (in some occasions literally...) and the streets are being covered in blood, and the two aspects (the main story and the events of the era) are being tied together in the same continuum.

    At the same time, the director attempts to portrait the whole birth and growth of the United States, in a kind of parabole, but without loosing his focus on the main story and the surrounding. Scorsese dives deeply into the psychology of his heroes, without giving out any explanation of their acts other than the probable - he lets us figure it out ourselves, and that's a God-given gift.

    The visuals: The film is disturbing, as it contains extreme violence. There are literally streams of blood, hacking, slashing, crushing - even some action movie fans (hey dude, look, he smashed his head with that thing... cool, man!") might find some parts of the film interesting. The last sequence is visually astounding, and it's by it's own account a reason to watch this film over and over again... if you got the stomach to actually cope with the disturbing images, that is.

    The actors: I didn't think it would come a day when I'd say that Leo Di Caprio can act, but ...here I go: The kid can act. And quite good too. Guess he needed a Scorsese to put him in the right path. Same with Cameron Diaz - she has got some potential, seems so. Too bad she wastes it in films like "the sweetest thing" and other throw-ups like that. And... Daniel Day Lewis. Truly, with this performance, they should give him the Academy award. He portrays the vile "Butcher" in a way few would be able of, and he adds depth to a character that could very easily end up "two-dimensional". He is stunningly good.

    New York, New York: Scorsese gets involved in something that compares to his previous work the way a fancy little sports car compares to a huge truck: A grandioso film of epic proportions and of great ambition. He does deliver, I believe. But this film shall not be acknowledged universally, because there is too much violence, corruption, lack of the good old white vs black (good vs evil, I mean) concept and does not sweeten the pill in any way. It's disturbing and raw, and it's a great. It's not a political film - in such, the director usually picks a stance, a "true" hero, an opposing view, and builds upon those. In this case, the director is truly endistancemented and keeps that distance, even from his "hero". There are no "good" people in that movie, all are acting like chess pieces in a predetermined way, but at the same time they try to burst out and do their own.

    The verdict: A fabulous film, which is going to be recognized for such in some years
  • For all its' Uber-violence, 'Gangs of New York' is a majestic piece of filmmaking. Director Martin Scorcese reunites once again with Editor Thelma Schoonmaker and Production Designer Dante Ferretti thusly recreating a potion of a country's history spectacled with infestation, disease and rampant violence. These are but some of the characteristics employed in an unconventional manner in hopes of telling a memorable story. Scorcese displays to the filmmaking world how imaginative he can be with his long overdue, epic and costly motion picture based upon a time in New York City's history where violence was not sporadic, but a necessity for survival. Set directly in New York's Five Points District, on a micro scale the film tells the vengeful story of Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo Di Caprio), a young man who returns 16 years after being banished from Five Points after witnessing his father's defeat at the hands of a vicious rival known as Bill The Butcher; infamous for his fixation with the meats and his innate sense of slaughterous murder. Upon Amsterdam's return, he has but one aim - avenge his father's death at the hands of the vicious 'community leader' William Cutting,, a.k.a. Bill The Butcher. Cutting prides himself as being a sadistic and remorseless thug who surrounds himself with the filth of the community in order to profit himself and his political allies. Daniel Day Lewis comes out of seclusion for a craft he apparently dislikes and simply nails this performance as a sophisticated and well-spoken murderer who has no parameters nor morals to bound him. He fights for the Yankee Way and opposes anyone who threatens the American lifestyle.

    On a macro scale, the story is a piece of American history as it recreates the arduous battles commenced in 1846 between the Irish settlers and the Anglo- Saxon 'natives' who sought to protect their country against foreigners. In all of this, the draft riots are explicitly revealed as those who chose not to fight were sought out and forced to. At one point, the film effortlessly demonstrates how immigrants were drafted right off the boats as they had a suitcase from a foreign country one moment, and an American Uniform the next practically unable to speak the English language, yet ready to wage war against an unknown enemy. The draft riot scene is a pivotal sequence in the film as it prepares the anti-climactic finale in which more violence and an astonishing amount of blood are spilled over the original streets of New York. This film makes every effort in highlighting what the term 'gang' means as it has undergone various permutations in definition. The original story by Jay Cocks (The Age of Innocence) has been filtered by Kenneth Lonergan (Analyze This) and Steven Zaillan (Hannibal) and contains the conventional pratfalls of Hollywood Cinema such as double crosses and plot twists, yet they are thankfully kept to a minimal. The story retains its core not so much on the development of the characters, but on the development of the times and interestingly enough, the interplay between Bill The Butcher and his rival Priest Vallon was stressed. Despite their differences and years after Priest's death, The Butcher still honored and celebrated his life. Sharing the same values and only divided by faith, honor was still a trait some had amidst all the ruins. Throughout all this lies an ingenious film in which Scorcese allows his characters to develop and evolve, as the film is a delicate piece of cinema balanced against a sensitive subject matter and directed with the utmost class and originality. Production Designer Dante Ferretti recreates the filth-infested streets and deplorable living conditions as poverty, decay, infestation and paucity are not spared in order to retell one of the vilest stories in recent memory. Those who are familiar with Scorcese's work will know he is the machine behind such films as 'Casino', 'Goodfellas' and the perennial classics 'Taxi Driver' and 'Raging Bull'. Those films are always under constant attack for the apparently amoral manner in which they exude violence, and now Scorcese can add the cornerstone of all violent films with 'Gangs of New York'. This is a perversely tempestuous violence-riddled film filled with gore, viciousness and intensity all in good use in order to demonstrate the living conditions when everyone had to sleep with one eye open. The film commences with no opening credits, just the company credits roll as we see Liam Neeson play the character of Priest Vallon, a highly admirable Community leader also fighting for what he believes in, the safety and prosperity of the Irish people based in New York. As the film opens, we see him bestow values upon a young Amsterdam Vallon as an opening battle sequence of epic proportions is mounting. The weapons are being bladed, prayers are being said and families are told goodbye as these warriors will clash on the streets of New York for the right to claim property and ownership of honor amongst thieves. Eerily close to the Brian De Palma School of suspenseful filmmaking, Scorcese seems to take a page from the aforementioned Director as the opening sequence is mounted in a very resourceful manner. Quick editing cuts thanks to Thelma Schoonmaker's hand demonstrate the weapons being sharpened as one tracking camera shot pans through the Dead Rabbits Gang led by Priest Vallon as the increasing volume in music indicates war is near. The camera tracks all the characters as we have been inside from the beginning of the film, and we have been introduced to the poverty and wretchedness of the times in a dark and cold shelter. Then the camera points towards a door and as it opens, all we see is a blanket of white symbolically representing the purity of the war and its' valor, but foreshadowing the red coat of paint about the cover the cobble stoned streets of New York. Phenomenal. That is filmmaking, and as the pace quickens, the war commences as challenges are made, met and the massacre ensues as our film slowly introduces the viewer to the violence as Scorcese aims to condition the viewer - B.F. Skinner style. This is somewhat different than his other outings whereas in both 'Goodfellas' and 'Casino' Scorcese boldly introduces ultra-violence without the slightest amount of warning. In this film, Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis) commences the war immediately as he slices and dices his way through the street enmeshed in a series of direct stab wounds yet no blood, but as he progresses and continues his assault, the knives are introduced as blood soaked, then the puncture wounds are accentuated as he pierces his way through flesh and finally we see his face saturated in the blood of others against the intentionally misplaced musical score of Howard Shore (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy).

    This sets the tone for a film not aiming to please anyone or to alleviate the discourse of cinematic violence. It recreates a time when violence was rampant and for the purposes of storytelling, the violence quotient was necessary to give justice to the lewdness of the situation. Even women are not spared as Cameron Diaz portrays a charismatic pocket thief named Jennie Everdeane.

    Despite her romantic engagement with Amsterdam, through her savage beating Scorcese displays no one was spared during the riots from the hands of predatory thieves who were vying to survive. Many have voiced criticism over the lengthy running time, and while many have stated there were segments which could have been trimmed, I disagree. At a running time of approximately two hours and forty minutes, the film recreates a piece of history sought with fragility and values conveyed to the viewer. People would give their lives for this war waged for the rights to claim ownership of NYC and it was of the utmost importance to develop that religious fanaticism closely. The characters in the film resemble heavily wrapped boxes, in which Scorcese allows to be unwrapped a little at a time; all the while he displays his prowess as a Director who astonishes with this film. For it is true the pacing was uneven at times, and the unraveling of the characters could have been sped up. But all of this is intentional in order to evoke a climax which represents their war between the Foreigners and the Anglo-Saxons in a city that had enough of its' riotous ways. While the violence will surely turn off Academy Members, Daniel Day Lewis' performance will not and this film will stand the true test of time as a story so unequivocally told it will remain indelibly etched in viewers minds long after the final sequence. Transition shots display the evolution of New York City from a point of view of a tombstone nestled right under the Brooklyn Bridge. Cross dissolves start in 1863 and documents the changes from that exact point up until the time the Two Towers of NYC were standing. Perhaps reminding the world despite the progression of mankind, we are still not civilized.

    Giancarlo's Rating: ***
  • rnys2215 September 2020
    I think the 7.5 average is about right. For all that I love about the historical topic, costumes, witty bits in the script (especially all Boss Tweed scenes) and acting from DDL, there were just a few things that felt very off preventing this from being a great film of the 2000s.

    The entire Jenny plot feels like a waste. The opening scenes with the father almost feel like Sci-Fi and take the realism out of a critical American history topic. The first half has a tremendous amount of build up for mostly uninteresting characters (and constant detail about gangs irrelevant to the plot) just to fulfill a centuries old trope and could have been sliced by 30 minutes to enhance the final product. The second half was good enough to help it overcome those flaws, but it requires a lot of patience, and I must note that the final showdown requires no great valor from these cowardly characters - ultimately a bit unfulfilling. The action afterward that showdown does do a good job of driving home a message though.
  • "Gangs of New York" mixes real American history with a weak fictional human drama and a thick coat of Hollywoodization resulting in an over wrought behemoth wannabe epic misfire. Scorcese pulls together bits and pieces of the Civil War conscription act, Irish potato famine immigration, Tammany Hall and Tweed corruption, race/slave issues, slum gangs, etc. and creates a milieu which has an off-target post-apocalyptic sort of feel and then tries to cram DiCaprio down our throats as a hero though he does nothing particularly heroic in the context of the film. The flick features blood and guts street riots reminiscent of "Braveheart", a romance which doesn't work, an evil guy over acted by Day-Lewis and little else save a whole bunch of filler to give us a taste of the times and milk the extravagance for all its worth. In spite of all that, "Gangs..." received several Oscar noms and a thumb and a half up from critical corners with so-so approval from the public. Okay for fans of the principals and others into Hollywood blockbusters. Not for the jaded or those looking for substance or sophistication. (B)
  • Gangs of New York is a flawed picture, but oh what a masterfully entertaining flawed picture. Buoyed by the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher, and quite possibly one of the greatest villains ever to appear on screen, the movie is a wonderfully detailed, semi-fictional account of New York in the 1860's--when the country was a political hotbed and the people were as ruthlessly dug in and divided as... well, today.

    DiCaprio is good, and maybe great even. But how would we know? The picture belongs to the Butcher--perhaps DiCaprio's ability to allow the villain to shine as he is and not attempt to steal the spotlight is a credit to the young actor. After all, he's not really the main character--rather, he's the pair of eyes through which we see this complex war-torn, urban society. The main character is Bill Cutting, whose moral, political, and xenophobic complexities mirror the contradictions in all Americans, particularly of that period--though such contradictions have been the subject of American historical fiction for two and a half centuries.

    Scorsese makes this picture the way it should be made, with caution to the wind and a heart bursting with vivid imagination that can be seen in every nook and cranny of the massive Five Points neighborhood on screen. He indulges in every turn to fill the film with multiple thematic elements, running at once both concurrent and in contradiction to one another. This creates a film that many people are uncomfortable with because let's face it: with all this going on, where's the plot? I think the plot, fragile as it is, only exists to deliver this world and its characters for us to observe, consume, and relish in. I certainly do. For all of its mistakes, it is a film I continue to watch over and over again, with a fascination I reserve perhaps for only three or four other films I have ever seen.

    I love this movie, God help me.
  • I am the first to admit that I had doubts about this movie before I saw it. Hollywood never does well with a story "based" on historical fact. After seeing it, my fears were not allayed, even though the film is shot well and the acting was above average.

    My main problem is the story itself. New York during the civil war was bad enough without having to embellish the story. Contrary to the theme of this movie, most of the rioting was caused by immigrants who resented the loss of jobs to freed slaves or feared would cause their wages to fall. Most of the violence was against blacks, including the burning of an orphanage and the killing and lynching of any unfortunate black caught on the streets.

    This is definitely liberal Hollywood's view of history. It may be interesting, but it definitely isn't factual. Also, all the slobbering about how great Daniel Day Lewis is in this character is over-rated. His is the kind of brutal, troubled character that doesn't appeal to me.

    See this movie if you want. Remember it is fiction of the worst kind.
  • There is certainly a lot of carnage. There's also a little confusion as to motivation. However if you don't try to look at this as an accurate portrayal of history and treat it as a bit of a fantasy, it plays quite well. We have wonderful adversaries who posture and primp. It was more of a nineteenth century gangster film (a little Godfather thrown in) and a tribal sort of thing with all the ritual and righteousness. Lets face it, it's just a bit much, including the Hollywood ending. It did remind me a bit of the Kurosawa movies where there is not a spot unbloodied ground left after the battle scenes. Daniel Day-Lewis is charismatic. He is the reason I would watch this movie again. He absolutely eats up every scene he's in. DeCaprio is a bit boring to me. What he represents is a lot more than what he does. Never got into him. Nonetheless, it's big and impressive with great cinematography. Did anything really get settled. I don't know.
  • I rarely review films at IMDB, but this one was so awful that I feel compelled to.

    When a film has to resort to extensive voiceover narration to carry the plot, that's always a bad sign. This movie pays a great deal of attention to staging bloody fights and very little to emotion or story. As many have said, most of the movie resembles a gory music video, not a film.

    DiCaprio has one expression [glowering] that he uses throughout the entire film. Cameron Diaz is fine, though she doesn't have a great deal to do. Daniel Day-Lewis is indeed marvelous, but although I'm a big fan of his I wish I hadn't seen this movie. Go watch In the Name of the Father again if you need a fix.

    When the militia put down the rioting immigrants, all you can feel is relief -- they lost all our sympathy when they murdered and lynched innocent people. Scorcese appears to think we will still feel for the irish gangs by showing the rich of the city as power hungry hypocritical bigots. He fails. Every character in the film, with the possible exception of Cameron Diaz, is a turd.

    They spent a lot of money on it, but it's a bad movie.
  • ahmxii19 February 2022
    Subjective tastes are very diverse and opinions of movie fans most often vary throughout the 1-10 scale, but in most cases majority agrees. However, there are movies that divide the audience into completely opposed groups of those who praise and those who bash the movie, with negligible few of those who rate it somewhere in between. When you scroll through the reviews for "Gangs of New York" you can see either 1/10 bashing or 9-10/10 hymns. And all the arguing between those groups is in vain. They'll never agree. In this particular case, I'm with those who praise it. The magnificence of this movie is not in analyzing the objective quality of its components, it's in the overall impression it leaves.

    Most of the movie takes place in New York during 1863 when one of the worst riots in American history took place. The location where they chose to have this film take place giving audiences a look at what it could've been like back then in New York. The action sequences which mostly involve people getting beat up in brutal ways are well executed especially the riots at the end. The showdown between Amsterdam and Bill was a bit of a letdown but it was fitting for the movie. The film was a bit long with a running time of 167 minutes. The pacing was a little slow at times but the performances by the cast make it worth watching anyway. Despite some flaws Gangs Of New York is still a well made crime drama with enough action, some suspense, a little humor and romance. So if you can get past the long running time Gangs Of New York is definitely worth watching and most of that besides what I already mentioned is because of the exceptional performances (especially Day Lewis and DiCaprio) by the lead actors and the amazing talent of Scorsese who continues to prove himself as a gifted filmmaker with this movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Man, this doth bestride the world of 1860s New York like a colossus. It begins with a battle on the streets of the (now disappeared) Five Points of New York City, between the Irish immigrants led by Liam Neeson, head of the Dead Rabbits gang, and the nativists, led by Daniel Day-Lewis, sporting the most down-home working-class New York accent you ever heard, a real phoneme-mangler, and the waxiest mustache as well, playing Bill the Butcher.

    Neeson is killed in battle, which stops the fight, as it did in ancient times, and Day-Lewis bellows out to the stunned mob, "The Dead Rabbits is gone forever. Let their name never be spoken from this time onward!" Neeson's son grows up to be Leonard DeCaprio and when he returns to Five Points he his taken under the wing of Day-Lewis, until his identity is revealed. Cameron Diaz is around here somewhere, swishing through bar rooms, half-built churches, and underground caves.

    Another street battle is arranged. Coincidentally it takes place during the historic draft riots of the Civil War period. Day-Lewis is killed by DeCaprio, and the feud is buried.

    I couldn't tell one gang from another but I loved their names. They are rooted in historical reality, I think, and they include not just the Dead Rabbits but the Chichesters, the Bowery Boys, and the Plug Uglies. The Plug Uglies derive their name, I understand, from a "volunteer fireman's group." There were thirty-seven such groups. There being no fire department to speak of at the time, volunteer groups were paid by the fire, which led to the expected results. Not only competition by rival groups to reach the fire first, but sometimes co-opting the fire by having a handful sit on the fire plugs and reserving them for their own group. (Arson by the firemen themselves also generated profits.)

    That's the kind of detail that Scorsese jimmies into this movie. We get to see some historical figures, such as Boss Tweed, and we witness their machinations. But the director's real interests lie elsewhere -- intrigues among the gang members and their molls, revenge, murders, public assassinations, things like that. I know. It sounds like the Corleone family. Unfortunately that's probably the weakest part of the film. There is usually a great sense of "place" and "tribe" in Scorsese's work. The Five-Points set is splendidly done but I couldn't get a sense of what was where. Transitions from exteriors to interiors, and the relation of community features to each other, were confusing. And although Day-Lewis's character was nicely delineated, and our attitude towards him necessarily ambivalent, I wasn't itching for DeCaprio to off him and stand victorious over his body -- which is part of the gangs' code. ("Ears and noses are alright, but nobody touches this body!" That's another order from Day-Lewis about taking post-battle trophies. Another guy gets paid by the new notches he carves into his sheleghly or whatever it is.) Nobody in the film is entirely admirable, although just about everyone is treacherous. A black orphanage is burned down during the draft riots but this eludes mention. Also, okay, this is about the poorest and most crime-ridden neighborhood in New York City. Day-Lewis is a butcher and Cameron Diaz is a hooker, but what kind of work do the others do? We don't see anyone making a living. We don't even hear them talk about it. To whom does Day-Lewis sell his lamb chops?

    None of that detracts from the power of the images we see on the screen, or from some of the superb performances, the least effective of which come from DeCaprio and Diaz. The film paints a moving portrait of near anarchy. We only get to see one or two cops and they're thoroughly corrupt. Nobody balks, no committee is formed to investigate, when a battle between street gangs leaves dozens dead. The street has its own code. Plus ca change.
  • It was like Inglorious Basterds to me. Great individual scenes, but mashed together in an unfocused way, especially the third act where Scorcese decided the riot was going to be the main character instead of Amsterdam and Bill.

    Daniel Day-Lewis gives an incredible performance, and any scene with him in it is interesting. Leo DiCaprio however, is lacking, along with Cameron Diaz. And somehow Diaz winds up the love interest of every main character in the film. Weren't there other women around? It seems more attention was paid to the art direction/production design/technical achievements than to it's story and the structure of such. The film runs pretty long, especially for a movie that lacks a streamlined narrative. Not that it needs to be that, but I think it tries to dazzle people more with set pieces devoted to spectacle rather than devotion to characters.

    I think the suits got too involved considering the cost of the project and wanted to see all of that money up on the screen and the film as a whole suffered for that. Listen to the commentary with Scorsese, he doesn't mention the film once. Only the history of the actual events depicted. I only give it five stars because a great deal of my disappointment is that it is a Scorsese film, and I've come to expect better.
An error has occured. Please try again.