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

When Larry decides he doesn't like a film, he certainly lets it out!

I am sensitive to historical films becoming revisionist history and it may be the Scorcese got into the overblown showiness that tended to make "Casino" look artificial. However, Vegas is artificial, so it worked there (even better with repeated viewings). I will go see it without bias but as I said before, Richard Roeper making it his best film of the year choice is not helping.

What I most resent about the way GANGS OF NEW YORK is being received is that everybody is lighting candles to the "genius" of Martin Scorsese and nolt looking at what is actually on the screen. By contrast, Spike Lee's 25TH HOUR is an infinitely better movie, but because Lee is controversial and not a critic's darling, virtually no crittic has given it a good review. If you evaluate the movie in GANGS OF NEW YORK and not the director's reputation, you walk away disappointed.

"25th Hour" hasn't been doing that badly with critics -- Ebert give is 4-1/2 stars and a good review, for one:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2003/01/011004.html

New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/19/movies/19HOUR.html

On IMDB's member ratings, it's nearly an 8.

I haven't seen any really bad reviews of 25th Hour. Maybe I read the wrong periodicals. But it's not really possible to compare a semi-historical epic like Gangs of New York with a contemporary film like 25th Hour. It's apples & oranges.

Kenneth Turan of the L.A. Times is not impressed with "Gangs:"

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-turan20dec20,0,3349260.story

I haven't seen a comprehensive top ten list yet of critics favorites yet for the year.

I loved "Gangs", haven't seen "Catch Me", did see "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" yesterday and enjoyed it.

Will get to "25th Hour" the very next one.

It is not apples and oranges to compare GANGS and 25TH HOUR. Both are gritty urban dramas. It would be apples and oranges to compare the Scorsese to a light comedy starring Julia Roberts, maybe. But both GANGS and 25TH HOUR are realistic urban dramas about crime and punishment--perfectly comparable even though they take place in different centuries. Otherwise, the only movie that you could compare GANGS to would be some other costume epic in exactly the same time period, clearly an absurd position.

Haven't seen "Gangs" but haven't seen or heard any very good reviews of it. Thought it had been mostly panned in a kindly sort of way. Whereas I've heard raves of Spike Lee's latest. My sources are generally NPR, New Yorker, NYTimes.

"Gangs" got favorable reviews in the NY Times, Rolling Stone, and a bunch of other mainstream periodicals. It did get panned in a lot of other places including the LA Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer. But I guarantee you that if anyone but Scorsese had directed it, it would have gotten even harsher criticism. The pans I read were mostly of the respectful variety. Compare that to the thrashing Spike Lee has gotten on his last two or three films, and undeservedly so!

I don't often let the critics guide my movie going habits and I do like to have people over to watch movies at home -- I'm not sure I won't still wait until it comes onto a cable channel.

One thing I will say in favor of GANGSis that it exploits the big screen for pictorial effect. Therefore, Lightwizard, you probably would be better off seeing it in the theater than on the tube at home.