Gangs of New York

Subject: Gangs of New York
From: GUEST,T-tone
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 08:13 PM

I just saw Gangs of New York. It's a feast for the eyes and there are Irish fiddle and banjo melodies throughout. It's an easy best Oscar nod for Daniel day Lewis...you heard it here first.

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 10:12 AM

it's been discussed previously here. IMHO -the movie is an abomination, TOTALLY a-historical, Day-Lewis is a joke, his portrayal of a character (who doesn't exist as such in the 'history' written in the 20's that the movie is supposedly based on) is so far over the top he makes Robin Williams look like Gielgud in comparison. The traditional music was so incidental as to be almost not worth the effort, but still great to see Finbar Furey & Maura O'Connal in something. It's a sorry thing that many people who see this film will think that ANY of the the events portrayed in it actually happened. Total fiction, and why bother make the film, then, when the real stories are even more interesting for being real. Hardly a real Irish accent in the lot, either. The only nice thing to say about Cameron Diaz 'doing' an Irish character is that it wasn't Julia Roberts or Meryl Streep. Shouldn't win any awards except maybe the Harvard Lampoon for most ridiculous film of the year.

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 10:34 AM

Scorcese could possibly win the director award, but it would be for career recognition, not this film. An absolute bomb, both critically and commercially. I'll bet the guys who bankrolled this one are regretting it.

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 11:18 AM

Bill Kennedy-I agree that the movie has no historical value, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. If you look at it as a work of pure fiction, I think you'll enjoy it a lot more. The plot was decent, the acting was far better than most films these days, the cinematography was fairly impressive, and any movie that has even part of Paddy's Lament in it can't be all bad.

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: C-flat
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 12:08 PM

I saw the film some weeks ago and was thoroughly dissapointed. Even as a work of fiction, the characters were over-done, more like caricatures and the setting looked more post-holocaust than early New York.
I'm a big movie fan but this one left me cold.

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 12:36 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with the naysayers. I too am a film fan, and a huge Scorcese fan to boot. I don't mind Hollywood's historical fictions, so long as there is an essence of the "real deal" in the film. None of that with this film. The choices for the leads (with the exception of a few excellent Irish actors like Liam Neeson, Daniel Day Lewis, etc.) was an abomination. Imagine Colin Farrell in Leonardo di Caprio's role for just a minute, and it becomes plain as day that Scorcese is certainly not above stereotyping the ethnics Hollywood style, purely for box office appeal.

I looked up the box office info, BTW. Production budget (which doesn't include advertising, promotional expenses, etc which add about a quarter of the cost of the production budget nowadays for a film like this) was $93,000,000. Total US gross to date has not yet hit $75,000,000.

Just a really, really bad film with some decent production values (ie I liked the art direction, but I didn't LOVE the art direction) which may, with U2 doing the film's Top 40 song, snag an Oscar for that. But I wouldn't bet on Scorcese winning it for director for this film. It really is just too much of a stinker, even by superficial HOllywood standards, for people to hold their nose and vote for him.

He is going to have to do a whole lot better than this to get the gong now.

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: GUEST,T-tone
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 10:04 PM

Kennedy you're too stuck on a historical hierarchy as the only valid content in a movie. Nobody including Scorcese is saying that his movie was undertaken with the only goal in mind being historical accuracy. To think this way misses the point and disables the viewer from seeing anything unexpected. There is always a large part in a film like this that requires the use of the imagination. Exageration in art is usually employed for a reason. Granted, Leonardo lacked a certain authenticity. So what. Apparently the film accomplished a certain provocation in you that may have been it's intent.

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 11:14 PM

The guys that bankrolled it had connections in high places....Smithsonian Magazaine had a large article on it last month....

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

But not persuasive enough to make me by an eight dollor ticket.

missed a bracket
joe clone

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: fat B****rd
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 03:15 AM

Well I liked it and have subsequently read the book which is mainly similar in name(s) only. So there.....

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: Steve Latimer
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 06:47 AM

Boy, more mixed reviews. I guess I'll wait for it to come out on video to form my own opinion.

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: GUEST,Pat Cooksey.
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 09:16 AM

Saw it in German, mainly to see Finbar Furey for 30 seconds, it was
O.K.

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 08:26 PM

Had a geezer flash recently and saw Gangs. (I thought I was in the right movie cubby to see The Two Towers again). Day-Lewis is definitely over the top, but like the good actors of the 40's and 50's he makes you believe it anyway. Near as I can tell the authentic historical parts are: lots of immigrants living in an abandoned Brewery in N.Y., there really was a notorious character named Bill the Butcher, and there was a Hell of a civil-war riot in NY sponsored by the poor folk, mostly Irish as usual, who couldn't buy their way out of the draft. The story itself was more of a fantasy than LOTR.

But the music was great. Is there a sound track recording?

O'Meara

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: GUEST,johntm
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 08:34 PM

Read "Paradise Alley" or "Banished Children of Eve" or "Five Points" to get a sense of NY then. A life of Archbishop Hughes is also worthwhile

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: ex-pat
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 09:11 PM

Well I really liked the film. One man's meat is another man's poison.
Some films people have been ecstatic about...I thought were absolute shite!
It captures a certain sense about the 19th Century and it is not supposed to be a history lesson. It's good entertainment with a historical flair. Not a bad soundtrack, O'Meara. I am looking forward to the DVD.

Subject: RE: Gangs of New York
From: ddw
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:25 PM

I saw it last weekend and, apart from a little overkill (pun intended) on the slash and spatter, didn't find its depiction of 1850-'60s NYC slums too different from Dickens's and others' descriptions of London around the same time.

Historically accurate? Don't know about all of it, but the draft riots were pretty nasty, from what I've read in my Civil War books, but there certainly were gangs and warlords in the city then as now and Tammany Hall was at least as corrupt as shown -- maybe worse. But accurate or not, it was a pretty compelling three hours of entertainment.

And I agree the soundtrack was pretty good -- tho' I'd have liked it better if it'd been blues....


cheers,

david