Ditto.
Well, for me, it’s Cameron Diaz who sucks the most ass in the movie. Leo, well he comes in a close second.
What is really wrong with the movie, is that this is Mr. Scorsese’s 9/11 film. The addition of the twin towers at the end earmarks this as a sort of twisted valentine/remembrance card for NYC.
(grrr hate the fact that the pronunciation of his name has changed over time)
I read a very interesting book on the Riots of New York. Of course the draft riots are the main story but it covers other huge riots. I would love to see a great mini-series on the draft riots.
That shit was seriously fucked up man.
So much was bad with it that all of the much good in it could barely keep up!
Starting out: Liam Neeson’s horrible wig.
Then: Bill the Butcher’s Artie Johnson imitation from Laugh-In.
Trying too hard to be a period movie. How many effing times do we hear about CD ‘having sand’?
Rambling movie. Just all over the place.
What everyone else said that was wrong with it.
No, no, he was correct. I’d definitely never believe that it won 6!
The Artie Johnson accusation was over the top. His performance, tho, is a bit caricaturish. I don’t know whom he is channeling, but, it is somebody I can’t quite place…
Gangs of New York has a lot of things going for it. The camerawork, the music, the sets and costumes are all excellent. I think it told a good and interesting story. Although one must admit it was a very long and somewhat unfocused story.There’s also a lot of great acting in the film besides DDL. Brendan Gleeson, Jim Broadbent, Stephen Graham and John C. Reilly were all perfect in their supporting roles.
Unfortunately, not all the acting in the film is great. I think Leo is a capable actor, but he was badly miscast as Amsterdam. I just don’t buy him as 19th century New York’s toughest knife fighter. Part of the problem was that he looked twice as pretty as Cameron Diaz, who was miscast in the sense that she’s just not really that good of an actor. Her entire plot line felt forced in anyway (as romance subplots often do) which was another of the film’s flaws.
I feel the film would have benefited from being slightly less over the top. For example: Bill killing the Sheriff of New York in front of dozens of witnesses was too much. That scene would have worked better if Bill had murdered him covertly (everybody know’s it was him but they can’t prove it). I did find the “no pistols” thing to be a bit unbelievable too. I mean, even the Jets and the Sharks broke the rules and brought weapons to the rumble.
Ultimately I’m quite fond of Gangs of New York, I even own it on DVD. But it certainly could have been better. It’s a bit of a flawed gem.
My problem?
I can watch any scene in that movie with Butcher Bill.
I can barely watch any scene with Amsterdam if BB is not around.
Forget any scene with Cameron Diaz.
The hero is a duplicitous little backstabber. The ‘villain’ is ruthless but honors his fallen foe.
Columbo. That’s it.
I agree that this is what Scorsese was most likely going for with the ending, but the problem with it is that he just spend two hours getting me invested in the story of the gangs in the points only to pull the rug out at the end and say “none of it really mattered.” Well, if that is the case, why did I waste my time watching the first two hours of the film?
I love this movie. Great story, great acting all around, great attention to historical detail. It was clearly made by someone who loves New York City and is fascinated with it. We need more smart movies like this about American history.
To those complaining about historical inaccuracies such as Barnum’s burning down and the date of Butcher Bill’s death: when making a movie about history you have to sacrifice some accuracy for the sake of plot and pacing. Life doesn’t come out in movie form.
Within the first ten minutes, I wanted everyone on the screen to die and just end it already.
It’s a “Shoot the Shaggy Dog” story.
I actually liked that it ended with the military’s response to the draft riots interrupting Amsterdam’s and Bill’s final showdown. I feel like the movie wasn’t telling a story about a gang war, but was more telling a story about those two guys and their relationship to each other as well as the neighborhood they lived in. In the film, as in real life, sometimes external forces completely outside your control influence your life and your relationships more than anything you personally do.
I thought the film was being a bit bold by having Bill cut down by some random shrapnel. There’s way too many films that simply end with the hero defeating the villain in combat because good guys are just always better fighters for some reason. I liked the notion that Bill really was the best individual warrior, but in the end that wasn’t enough to save him.
Herbert Ashbury’s book certainly shouldn’t be taken for the gospel truth of the goings on of New York in the 19th century either. Surely much of the material is tall tales told through the New York underworld spun between actual figures who were famous or infamous enough to appear in the newspapers of the time.
I liked the rival fire companies arguing over who gets to loot the burning house. Of course, they decided to just let it burn down.
Ditch DiCaprio and Diaz and their atrocious accents. I know they explained their accents by the fact they were Irish-Americans and not Irish but they sounded fucking ridiculous. It would have been better for them to just have American accents.
Edit it better, make a leaner film. Goodfellas is a really long film but there’s no scene in it I’d cut. There’s way too much flab in GoNY.
The music in the initial, otherwise great, fight scene was off-putting too.