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

The reviews are mixed and there's a skepticism on my part toward those critics who consider Scorcese such a great director that he can do no wrong. Scorcese is one of the finest directors American has produced. The way I would approach this is whether it establishes a new benchmark for historical epics, say in comparison to "The Lord of the Rings" being the benchmark for fantasy epics (although until the entire three parts is released, there can't be a final judgement on how great the films will ultimately be). I'm reading that while this is a good film, it's message is somewhat contrived and taxes credibility. The production design does look awesome and I do believe Daniel Day Lewis being one of the foremost living actors delivers a powerful performance. I'm waiting to see if it really buoys me out of my seat like "The Two Towers," or on an even more profound level, "The Pianist." Epics have to use dramatic/visual license -- Peter Jackson did some tampering with the sequence of events in TTT, most noticably, the battle at Helm's Deep being moved to the end.
You can't get away with that as much when you're trying to use history as making a point. Scorcese was asked on the History Channel special about whether the film was faithful to history and all I can remember is he shrugged his shoulders in a way that said, "Well, whadda you want?"

One of the ads for "Gangs" includes a blurb by a critic (Richard Roeper) saying that this film may finally get Scorsese the Oscar he so deserves. I think it's appalling that he hasn't won an Oscar, but those awards are thoroughly bogus, IMHO.

Oscar does gravitate toward epic films over the small film and musicals have done well. I think it's going to end up being between "Chicago," "Gangs" and "The Two Towers." "Two Towers" may get a split vote for the top five against another epic film with a highly regarded, seasoned director like Scorcese. It's true that "Goodfellas" and "Raging Bull" should have both won Oscars. I'd have to look back to see what film did win those years, but offhand, I'd say Scorcese was robbed.

Scorsese never got Best Director; I don't know if any of his films got Best Picture. Somehow I doubt it. My guess is that he's too independent to be a popular Hollywood type. Thankfully!

He lost for "Raging Bull" to Robert Redford for "Ordinary People" in 1980 (a good film but inferior to "Raging Bull.")

He lost for "Goodfellas" to Kevin Costner and "Dances With Wolves," again a good film but inferior to "Goodfellas."

And then consider a short list of some really second rate films that were nominated for the Oscar and it paints a dubious picture of the awards:

"Earthquake" I think the Sensurround rattled the academy voter's
brains. Oscar Meyer was waiting outside the last soundstage of the last day of film to can some of the performances.

"Nicholas and Alexandra" They actually stayed awake long enough
to vote for it -- Nicholas and Alexandra were really boring people -- I could hardly wait until they did get shot. Rasputin got heartburn from eating the sets.

"The Alamo" John Wayne's highly revisionist history, it's a good pic if one
spends a lot of dough on it mentality (and he spent some of his own being such a good capitalist). "The Apartment" won. Duh.

"Cleopatra" The product of a studio in near bankruptcy ("The Longest Day" bailed them out and Cleo eventually made some money but had actually been slashed to pieces by editors (it was to be two films and may still make it as all the footage is still available).

"Fatal Attraction" A disposable suspense melodrama with Glen Close who prepared for the part by sticking a wet toe in a hot socket.

"Ghost" A Cosco ten boxes of Kleenex movie -- it is also easy to see through this one!

Yes, Lightwizard, that lists helps me remember why I never watch the Oscars presentation!

So I've finally seen Gangs of New York. I didn't read these posts until today because I knew you guys would tell me more than I wanted to know!

I thought that the production design and attention to detail were marvelous. Yes, it has gratuitous sex and nudity, as well as enough blood to last me a long time, but I was completely enthralled. I've missed Daniel Day-Lewis and it was really great to have him back on the screen. Can you imagine anyone else in that role? Leo and Cameron were less interesting by far, but didn't get in the way of the story.

Does anyone know the story on why it took so long for this film to be released? I know it's been more than two years since principal photography began, and I recall that 9/11 caused some concerns about the release of it. Did Scorsese just spend the last year re-editing?

My only real objection was to the length of the film. In the scene when you think Amsterdam is about to die, I glanced at my watch and there were still 45 minutes to go!

mac, I agree with a lot of what you say, especially how compelling it was despite a few longueurs. Re why it took so long to complete: I recall reading that Scorsese had differences of opinion with Miramax. Much squabbling about editing, I believe...

I thought the movie was pretty weak. The best sequence came at the beginning, when Priest Vallon fought Bill the Butcher and got killed. Otherwise the movie is too long, DiCaprio was terrible as was Diaz, and Day Lewis while good simply hogged too much of the movie, overshadowing all the other characters. The movie could have benefited from being half an hour shorter--it is unconscionably too long at 2 hours and 45 minutes, since so little happens for long stretches.

Welcome to A2K, larry!

I agree that we could have used more Liam Neeson and less of everything else...

does anyone know if it's still playing in bston or close by suburbs and where? i have no boston papers.
i'd really like to see it...

Larry, "unconscionably too long"? I hardly think of this as a moral issue! An aesthetic concern, perhaps...

mikey, I'm positive it's still there. It's been open less than a month. And they will have to run it till summer to make back their $97 million!

Scorcese stated that he made a 100M "art film." That is magnanimous of him. Richard Roeper placed it as his favorite film of the year. This definitely makes me want to save my passes for Edward's Theaters for another film. I can imagine the production design is superb and the cinematography -- perhaps worthy of seeing on the big screen. Daniel Day Lewis never quite made it into my favorite actor list (his mannerisms have alwas dislocated me from understanding his characters) and the other actors are much further behind (although my movie buff friends have said that DeCaprio is very good in "Catch Me If You Can.")

And then, I was not impressed with "Kundun" other than the Philip Glass score. "Goodfellas" remains my favorite Scorcese film with "Raging Bull" not far behind. Those are the films where his own homage (in his multiple hour tribute of Italian cinema which I enjoyed immensly) means something. This foray into the historical epic and what I perceive as a distorted strecthing of artistic license seems to have sacrificed the raw energy of his best efforts. I'd rather go back and see "Mean Streets" right now.

Incidentally, anyone following the PBS documentary, "Chicago?" One of the finest documentaries that isn't a Ken Burns product.
I like their programming to coincide the documentary with the film musical.

Lightwizard, with all due respect, perhaps you should break down and see "Gangs". It's not going to be anywhere near as powerful if you wait until it's on DVD. Once you've seen it, we can discuss!

Hokay. I probably won't go out of my way (I like to see films like this at Newport but, strangely, they've got "The Hours" on the 120 ft. screen and delegated "Gangs" to a smaller theater. I am watching Scorcese's documentary on TNT which is a repeat of his retrospect of American films. I'm not so sure after Scorcese's efforts to be regarding as a film scholar if he hasn't falled into the trap of making his films too presumptious of their own greatness. "Kundun" worked as a documentary but the dramatic content was not very good theater. This film sounds like good theater but not a good document of the times. I am guessing this is the worst thing a director can tackle -- historical drama. They try to make it work dramatically, pumping up and distorting characters, locations, seasons, and all sorts of other "artistic licenses." It's almost schizophrenic, this desire to present something as a documetation of the time and the desire to be flamboyantly theatrical. I will take your "dare" and go see it. (P.S., it it turns out to be more like the film "Cromwell," you're dead meat )

Fair enough, Lightwizard! I'm not saying you're bound to love it, but I do think you'll find it worth the shekels...

Can't use the excuse of not wanting to buy the tickets -- I get passes. It's only the time on these treacherous freeways and road of Southern California. It may have been safer back with "The Gangs of New York."

thanks macsm11, i hate to make the trip that far and not know where to head....

Welcome, Larry!

Mikey, the movie is playing at the AMC Fenway, the Loews-Boston Common and the Kendall Sq. Theater in Cambridge. Also in a number of suburban theaters too numerous to mention. Go to Boston.com for film times.