Martin Scorsese's new film "Gangs of New York"

Forums: Movies
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Martin Scorsese's much awaited film "Gangs of New York" is to be highlighted on the Discovery Channel on the following dates:

Dec 12 2002 9:00 PM--- Dec 13th 12:00 AM--- Dec 14th 3:00 PM
& Jan 01 2003 4:00 PM--all times shown are EST.

DISCOVERY SHOW HIGHLIGHT
The show reveals how the movie "Gangs of New York" uses Herbert Asbury's book to capture the nitty-gritty, the hardship, the corrupt politics and brutal gang wars of antebellum New York and paints the picture of early 19th Century New York.

The following is general information relating to the feature film "Gangs of New York":

"GANGS OF NEW YORK" (2002)

Opening in wide release 12/20/02

Director: Martin Scorsese
Producers: Alberto Grimaldi, Martin Scorsese
Screenwriters: S. Zaillian, J. Cocks, M. Scorsese & K. Lonergan
Production Designer: Dante Ferretti

Premise: Set in the period from 1846 to 1863, this is the story of how gangs got started in New York City in that time of Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed. The two gangs at the heart of this film are the Dead Rabbits (Irish) and the Native Americans ("natives of New York", ie, British/Dutch). Amsterdam Vallon (DiCaprio) is the son of the Rabbits' murdered leader, and he vows vengeance on the man who killed him, Bill "The Butcher" Poole. (Cameron Diaz plays a thief that falls in love with Vallon; Daniel Day-Lewis plays Bill the Butcher; Liam Neeson plays DiCaprio's father; Henry Thomas plays Johnny Sirocco; John C. Reilly plays Happy Jack; Brendon Gleeson plays Monk; Jim Broadbent plays Boss Tweed.)

Running time: 164 min. (Miramax Films) Rated R

Filming: Production started on August 30th, 2000 at the Cinecitta studios in Rome, where the New York City of the mid-19th century was reconstructed. Harvey Weinstein was quoted as saying the final budget was $97 million.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,555 • Replies: 70

No top replies

This thread was originally posted in the "General" forum and was moved to the "Film" forum which is topically appropriate for the subject!

Thanks!

0 Replies

couzz..Ive seen a few glimpses of this film already and I usually like to not see the more in depth information until after I have seen the film, although this one I am teeter tottering on going to see it or not so, this information could very well come in handy.
Thanks

0 Replies

Martin Scorsese's new film"Gangs of New York"
guinn1

I noticed "Gangs of New York" got an R rating. Do you have any information on how violent this film is?

When I saw Scrosese's "Goodfellas" the violence was over the top for me. I can take tension and confrontation but not graphic bloody violence--it just doens not seem like entertainment to me.

I think Martin Scorsese is a great director and I respect his films overall. My top three picks are: "Raging Bull", "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" & "King of Comedy".

0 Replies

Lightwizard would probably have more facts than I but, I do believe part of the R rating is due to the violence and language. There is a pretty rough sex scene in it that Ive viewed so far. Other than that, I couldnt give you more information right at this moment.

0 Replies

The violence is intense! I had my fingers over my eyes more than once... I am glad to hear about the special on the Discovery channel, as I am curious about the making of the film. I wonder how much of it was based on facts?

I give Gangs of New York 3 1/2 stars... fascinating movie, but just a wee bit long, clocking in just short of three hours... (yawn)

0 Replies

I'm having a fit to see this one.
It purports historical accuracy. My peeps came over from Ireland during the big migration, and I am looking forward to see Tammany Hall visa vie Scorsese.

Saw the clips from the Discovery docu. WOW!
Buzz for Best Director.

0 Replies

I think you're going to love it, Lash. They mentioned 15,000 Irish per week were arriving in New York at the time. The movie showed them arriving... and the kinds of "welcomes" they received from the people of New York. I can't imagine what it was like to get off one of those boats...

0 Replies

maximom (cool name)
I hope to talk about it with you after I see it. Hopefully, soon.

0 Replies

I would like to see this film but, since you say its a bit long..I may just wait to rent it...glad to hear about the high star rating!
Missed the docu....wonder if its going to run again, and if I should watch it....very revealing or just enough information?

0 Replies

The History Channel's "Hollywood or History" special on "Gangs" was the best -- they concluded it veered off the real history but not beyond what was acceptable artistic license. Tammany doesn't come off any better than you'd think he would.

0 Replies

I saw some of the History Channel special. It was fascinating, and I loved the clips from the film. May not be the best film to wait for on video, because the scale must be epic! Shocked

0 Replies

The production design deserves to be seen on the big screen.

0 Replies

Just give Daniel Day-Lewis the Academy Award RIGHT NOW.

The movie is violent--excessively so, more than once or twice (as befits a Scorcese flick, I suppose)--and there are some gratuitous breasts, but the story is fascinating and woven into historical context.

Anyone remember 'Ragtime'? That's what this reminded me of.

It clocks in at two hours and forty-five minutes, including about ten minutes of promotional trailers at the beginning.

Go to the bathroom immediately before it starts and don't buy a Coke, because you won't want to miss a minute.

0 Replies

I've heard this film discussed a lot on NPR programs, mostly by respected historians of the period it portrays. The concensus seems to be that the general milieu -- particularly the sets -- is very authentic and so is the whole atmosphere portrayed. All the historians agree that the violence is overdone. The kind of brutality depicted, they say, was about as common in the Five Points area as a mugging in Central Park is today. It happens, but it's not an omnipresent everyday event. One historical inaccuracy -- the racially-motivated riots are shown as taking place with snow on the ground. The actual draft riots occurred in July (as most riots seem to) and no more than three, perhaps four, black men were actually killed.

0 Replies

I watched the film this afternoon, and it was incredible. Sure, there were flaws, but they were minor. Agreed that Daniel Day-Lewis deserves an Academy Award--hands down.

Before the movie started, they showed previews of violent movies by (and starring) the usual suspects, with all the usual themes. "Gangs of New York" shows what a film can be--not just cheap entertainment, but something meaningful!

0 Replies

I saw this movie after having read about some of the historical inaccuracies, namely that the violence was over done. The numbers of people involved made the riots look more like a pitched battle between the armies of Alexander the Great and the Parthians (I'm not sure, did Alexander engage the Parthians? Well, you get the idea). As I understand it, features of various riots that occurred over a period of years got telescoped into two big fights in this movie. That's okay. Just a little necessary artistic license. However, the massive numbers of dead and wounded shown in the movie were a gross and unnecessary exaggeration. I think the naval bombardment also never happened.

Daniel Day-Lewis was exquisitely evil. What really came through was the persecution of the Irish in those days. Boss Tweed was a wondrously corrupt politician played by Jim Brodbent (I remembered him as the husband of Iris Murdock in the movie "Iris," and was amazed at the difference in the two roles). Both Leonardo and Cameron Diaz were good, but no one is this movie compares with Daniel Day-Lewis. He will certainly get an Academy Award nomination for best Actor.

This is an excessively violent movie (Mrs. Hazlitt left in the middle for that reason. Admittedly, she's a little squeamish).

0 Replies

Hazlitt, I'm sure you're right about certain inaccuracies, but given the way Hollywood does true stories, I don't think the film should be faulted too severely. I mean, take "A Beautiful Mind". Here was a story about a contemporary guy, and they erased many details that would make the hero less appealing.

The violence may have been overstated, but I'll bet the tolerance (and appetite for) cruelty depicted was true! And I totally agree with you about Day-Lewis and Broadbent.

On another note, I saw the film with a friend and her teenage daughter. It occurred to me afterward that the girl probably had no idea who Boss Tweed was, not to mention what the Draft Riots were about. A lot of the film probably made little sense as a result...

0 Replies

The New Yorker review of the film was almost entirely about Daniel Day-Lewis. One got the feeling (never expressly stated) that the reviewer didn't think much of the movie itself, but was sure that Day-Lewis should win the Oscar.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew, I just found the New Yorker review on-line. Looks to me that the reviewer did, in fact, pan the movie, despite liking Day-Lewis in the role.

I saw a review in the Village Voice that panned it, too. It's almost as though the NY press felt compelled to dislike it, for whatever reason. On the other hand, the NY Times gave it a rave. Go figure!

0 Replies

Martin Scorsese's new film "Gangs of New York"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know