Gangs of New York

Way too bloody for my taste. Realistic perhaps but sickening.

I thought Daniel Day Lewis did an admirable job as the Butcher. He obviously put a lot of effort into the role. I was a bit hesitant about watching this movie because of the presence of that goofball from "Titantic". What's his name? Oh, yeah... Leonardo DeCaprio. I hate that guy. Actually, I considered not watching the movie simply because DeCaprio was in it, but he has not yet reached the status of Sylvester Stallone. I will never, under any circumstances, including torture, watch a movie with Stallone as a featured player. The man turns my stomach.

Back to your original question: I would give the movie a 5 on a 1-10 scale. Nothing spectacular, but somewhat entertaining, and it did supply me the impetus to research New York City around that era.

I hear ya gustav, I can't stand Leo either....however, the DVD rental was only $2, and there were two discs, so hey, a dollar a disc.

I think Ed Norton would have done a gooder job in the Leonardo role. THERE IS BUT ONE LEONARDO DAMMIT.

I agree with your comment about the color. It was so damn forced to be "period" that it was a demo of how we can change a century by doing away with blue and green completely. We all know that blue wasnt invented until I W Farben discovered it in 1925. Gimme a break.

One may believe that Leonardo was miscast in "Gangs," but he turned in a great performance in "Catch Me If You Can." In "Gangs," everything really revolved around the Daniel Day Lewis character so actually nobody fared well up against one of the best actors of his generation. Don't sell Leonardo short -- he hasn't always picked the best scripts just like every director hasn't picked the best scripts. I think he needs to lose that adolescent, wet-behind-the-ears baggage before he really blooms -- in "Catch Me If You Can," it was virtually non-existant.

The orange/amber filters did bother me -- in places it almost look like those dreadful scenes in the film version of "South Pacific."

Huh...well, we plan on watching it a second time, for two bucks, we might as well...I liked "Catch Me If You Can", but thought it was a tad lengthy.

Quite a complicated story to tell so I wasn't bothered by the length of "Catch Me If You Can."

STILL think DDL should've taken home Oscar.

Not that Adrien Brody was unworthy or anything...

Now, 'Apocolypse Now: Redux', the length did not bother me.

Daniel day lewis was the best thing in that movie. Besides that i thought it was one of the worst films i have ever seen.

The worst movie you've ever seen? There's absolutely no movie worse than "Gangs of New York?"

"Apocalypse Now Redux" is two movies colliding into one another. A wickedly satirical view of what everyday life was like in Vietnam during the conflict and a misguided adaptation of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" which sank as soon as Marlon Brando showed his face, or what passed for a face. It looked more like a meatball made up like a face by the creators of Mr. Potatohead. Don't have the high regard for the historical significance of that film -- I even like Copolla's "Dracula" much better than the muddle of the film. "Apocalypse" has some brilliant set pieces which critics continually laud but a few great scenes does not a classic make. I could never understand the hoopla and the added scenes of sexual exploits just made it more tedious, helped out by the dreadful drone of possibly the worse musical score ever written for a film (the original music written by a Copolla relative he must have owed money to, not "Ride of the Valkyries.") Watched the entire film again in its orignal wide screen and it really is a schizophrenic epic. Or an epic for schizophrenics.

I actually do like the documentary, "Heart of Darkness" reviewing the agony that went into making the film.

never got to see that movie. tha' waz coz we saw the trailer, one night, in the cinema, and it was just so pathetic that, for a moment, we were frozen in our chairs, and then stasia blurted out into the silence: "whatever!", and that was our running gag for a while. couldnt very well have taken the flick seriously after that anymore, anyway.

The pretentiousness kinda blurts out across the theater with the original trailer. It isn't particularly anti-war other than the rather sarcastic slant of the satire. It wasn't addressing anything other than it was a gigantic exercise in futility to be there in the first place but didn't really have anything new to say about it. I've recommended before in this forum that one see "Tigerland," another satirical view of how really stupid the military can be. "Full Metal Jacket" also suffered from being episodic and I just wonder if the storytelling in "Gangs" isn't a bit too disjointed and a lot of razzle dazzle. For me, Daniel Day Lewis looks like a characture of a villain just like Brando in "Apocalypse." There are far superior anti-war films to that film, incidentally. Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" is probably my favorite and it's in black-and-white. But what black-and-white as it tryly takes one back in time! I think color can often damage an historical epic -- there's a remoteness and atmosphere to black-and-white. Another great b & w anti-war film is "The Steel Helmet." There's a scene in there where a soldier is probably mortally wounded and his pal is holding him, muttering, "If you die, I'll kill you."

Incidentally, in "Tigerland" although it is in color, the contrasts of black-and-white are used to great effect -- much like Spielberg did in "Minority Report."