Geez, from this thread you’d never guess the movie was nominated for 10 Oscars (including Best Picture) and won 6.
I think it’s a fine film.
Funny, when they’re not part of a 10, your zeros look an awful lot like sixes.
Chicago won 6 that year, maybe that’s what you were thinking of?
None of the actions of any of the characters made any sense.
In the opening scene Priest takes his kid to a gang fight.
Leo wants to kill Bill but will only do it onstage. If he really was after revenge he would kill him the first time he got the chance.
Bill lets Leo get close even though he knows Leo is Irish and he hates the Irish.
After the failed attempt instead of killing Leo Bill wounds him and lets him live.
After the Irish guy wins the election Bill murders him in broad daylight and nothing happens to him.
As others have already said it is supposed to feel epic, but is just about one person’s revenge even though the main character never acts like he wants revenge.
I noticed that too, didn’t Bill catch Leo fooling around? And didn’t immediately attack him? Not everyone would, of course, especially with regards to a close associate, but it seemed out of character for him.
I really liked Gangs of New York, but this scene always felt off. Thank you for finally making me realize why.
What doesn’t make sense?
Priest Vallen was teaching his kid about the importance of fighting for your family/home/clan.
“Gang code”. Amsterdam specifically says “you kill a king in his court for all to see”. Aside from having to work himself up to killing someone, the whole point was he wasn’t going to avenge and honor his father by assassinating Bill in some cowardly fashion.
Bill doesn’t hate the “Irish”. He hates off the boat immigrants. Amsterdam is second or third generation. Plus he likes his inginuity and badassness.
Again, that’s “gang code” dude. Amsterdam isn’t some ignorant Irish underpeon in some bungled assassination attempt. He’s the great Priest Vallen’s son! The son of the guy whose picture they toast every year on the aniversity of his defeat. It’s clear that Bill respected Vallon. And remember he’s big on the “spectacle of fearsome acts”. Bill wants to kill the son of Vallen in a great battle as a worthy adversary and thus strengthen his power.
Whose going to arrest Bill the Butcher? Happy Jack Mulraney? Boss Tweed? Everyone is either on his payroll or needs his muscle.
Part of the problem, I think, was that the book was not a work of fiction but a well-documented history not only of the Civil War era but from the earliest days of the settlement to the 1920s. It was within this context that Scorsese had to build a story, and he chose three of the book’s most colorful characters to do it. It wasn’t as though the dramatic narrative had already been written and was just waiting to be turned into a film.
Something similar happened with Titanic: I’ve heard many people criticize James Cameron’s Romeo-and-Juliet story, but without it (or some other human interest story) the film would have been just another documentary.
A historical inaccuracy that bothered me for the pointlessness of it: the movie portrays Barnum’s Museum burning to the ground. IRL this happened the summer after the Civil War ended, then the rebuilt museum burned down three years later.
It was curious to me why an expensive scene that was only a minute or so was filmed when not only was it not historically accurate but it wasn’t at all necessary to the plot.
My main takeaway from the movie was that I thought DDL’s voice was brilliant; you could hear the beginnings of the stock “New York accent” in it. (Yes, I know there are many NYC accents, but, he did a great reverse engineering job of one.) Though come to think of it, he did sound a tad like Peter Falk in some scenes as well.
I thought it pretentious:
-it didn’t follow the book at all (Butcher Bill died LONG before the Civil War)
-DiCaprio’s character was pretty flat
It did capture the ugliness, dirt and general horror of 19th century NYC life.-it made me thankful that I live in the 21st Century.
One thing that interested me-the “Old Brewery” at the Five Points: I once read that when the building was demolished (in the 1890’s), over 25 skeletons were found buried in the walls, floors, etc. Scarey stuff!
My mistake. Don’t know how I misread that. But the ten nominations are still there.
And while we’re looking at IMDb, we might also notice that Gangs of New York has a 7.5 rating from 190,727 viewers, and a metascore of 72/100 from critics.
Not to seem like I’m picking on you, but 7.5 out of 10 and 72 out of 100 are both a C grade in my book. The question of the thread is not “Why is Gangs of New York such an awful movie?” It’s “why does it fall short of being a great movie?” I’d say those numbers simply support that position.
The Old Brewery was demolished in 1853, or, about 10 years before the events of the film take place. It was replaced by a Methodist church and mission which had a school and a bathhouse as well as low income housing. Need proof? Original New York Times article about the dedication of the mission, June 17, 1853. Perhaps you are thinking of a different building.
The article also says the the Old Brewery was “tolerably purged of crime, and was the habitation merely of misery” in the time before it’s demolition.
You can’t convert IMDB scores into letter grades like that. The Top 250 is rated 8.0-9.2 (with more 8.0s than anything else) and Gangs of New York is in their Top 5000. It is considered one of the best movies on the site, at a tier below the all-time classics.
Again: supports the thesis of the OP.
Have you read the actual posts in this thread (to which I was responding)?
That last quote might look familiar.
I agree that GoNY isn’t on the top tier of cinema but it has some top tier aspects:
The march to the fight and beginning of the fight at the start of the movie is an amazing scene. One of the decades best.
The bar band singing NY Girls. I love music played live in movies and this was a perfect example.
Bill the Butcher. Sure DDL was chewing some scenery. All the great ones do. Some of the best performances of all time are actors really going out there.
Thats off the top of my head. Now I don’t think GoNY did anything wrong (most good historical fiction fudges timelines, facts etc.) And if you don’t like the actors, that is your personal preference.
I just think that it was a great movie. I don’t know what could have put it with the best of all time. Abstraction? Adding stuff would just be speculation.
But do people actually think it would have been better if a different group of actors played the roles? Or if the timeline was to the letter?
My only real argument I had was with your original, acknowledged-to-be-erroneous claim that it won 6 Oscars. Everything else is quibbles that I have no interest in bickering over.
It does, thanks!
The historical accuracy or lack thereof was pretty irrelevant to the movie. The events of the movie were a hash up of things that really happened over the course of two decades, but that’s not very important. I was just correcting the misinformation stated in ralphs post.
For me, the real issue with this movie is that it doesn’t connect with and move me. That’s why it is basically boring. It has a lot of action but no reason to care. A lot of incredible set pieces but no reason to care. DDL has a particular ability to let humanity shine through the most unrelatable characters and even he falls a hair short in this case. Diaz & Dicaprio… Don’t and they fall way way way short of the mark. They appear to be in a completely different movie.
Taking a snakk child to a gang fight to watch people being beaten to death is not teaching importance of fighting for your clan, it is just weird. No one else brings their kids and presumably he can wait til after puberty to teach him to rumble.
Gang code is totally made up and arbitrary. Amsterdam tries to shoot him while Bill is drinking a toast. How is that not cowardly? Bill even makes a speech about how Amsterdam has no heart.
The gang code about sparing Amsterdam makes no sense either. Bill has been trying to keep the dead rabbits down in any way possible. Yet he spares the son of the last leader so he can have a huge rumble. He then sends the sherriff to kill him in the church.
The gang code serves the purpose of postponing the conflicts til it is convenient for the story, but makes no logical sense is not how any actual criminals work.
What are you talking about? Street gangs today have children that young in their ranks, and regularly expose them to incredible levels of violence. The only thing that’s really changed is the popular perception that children should be protected from that sort of thing. During the period in which the movie was set? There were kids that age in uniform on the battlefields of the Civil War. Reforms in the British navy had recently changed the minimum age of enlistment for midshipmen to fourteen - in the prior century, it had been eleven. And midshipman was an officer rank. And that’s just military life - children that age and younger were also working in dangerous conditions in factories and mines.
Yes, it is, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a real thing. History is full of bizarre codes of conduct dictating how and when it’s appropriate to commit murder. Chivalry, bushido, holmgang, code duello - these are all ways that society formalized their idea of ways it was appropriate for their member to commit violence on each other. Street codes are the same thing, a “downstairs” version of the systems of honor and revenge perpetuated by the ruling class.