tmcalisto
It can be inferred that Gangs of New York is a very violent movie because it takes place during the civil war. There was a lot of disunity, and many northerners were not willing to be drafted to help fight for black equality. The polt did jump around a bit, making it slightly hard to follow but the blood, gore, and romance keeps the audience engaged in the film. The love hate relationship between Amsterdam and Jenny helped further establish their characters and the inner conflict they possessed within themselves. Flashbacks were a key point in the movie as they helped the viewer get an idea of what characters were like from the near beginning of their life. Though some of the more bloody scenes deemed to be unrealistic, the characters were also portrayed well by their actors.
AlixSinnamon
This film is compelling. It also catches the viewer off guard. At first, it begins to build itself as your average son-of-killed-man- gets-revenge-years-later plot line. Then it completely throws the viewer off, thereby creating very deeply emotional characters. They feel like they are real as more information is revealed. There is also no shortage of intrigue. It might begin to feel as though the film is too long, but when it is over the entire picture comes together and one sees exactly why it was played out the way it was. Most of the cast is brilliant; the accents are slight but noticeable enough to be believable. Each performance is gritty and well done. Daniel Day Lewis and DiCaprio play off each other beautifully- they're both excellent actors and could have easily over-performed one another, but it can be perfectly understood that Scorsese directed them well. Each main character's story has a purpose that makes sense and doesn't feel unnecessary. It is true, however, that many of the supporting cast is forgettable(mainly because they look very similar and are only seen once or twice), though the film tries hard to make you care about them when they die. And there is a lot of death in this film, specifically killing. When the word "gangs" is in the title, that's obvious. The film also does a great job of showing the plight of civil-war era Americans who were affected by the first draft, showing facts that not many remember these days. The end is sure to tug on your thoughts for sure, and it leaves the viewer pondering everything from America's history to the meaning of loyalty. Very well done.
mark.waltz
I don't think that you're supposed to like anybody in this epic story of civil war era New York City where hatred because of different Christian faiths shows the hypocrisy of an evil time. It was the era of slavery, the time where brother fought brother, where corruption was king, and survival meant getting what somebody else owned. In a sense, it was as bad, or possibly worse, than life in the old country, all in the name of religion and keeping the unwanted out, or at least down. The issues of the draft leads to the riots as men able to buy their way out find free blacks taking their jobs for less money, revealing even more hatred and leading to really inhumane treatment of the newly free that has shaped racial views across the country today. This all makes me wonder if supposedly educated, civilized men were really barbarians in expensive suits.There has been much written and documented about New York City history, and a spectacular PBS documentary goes into detail about rial hatred as New York became the megacity of a country not yet at its centennial. It starts decades before the civil war with a nasty fight between Irish immigrants (the "dead rabbits" gang) and American born brutes (simply called the Native Americans) where a young Irish boy witnesses the brutal slaying of his father (Liam Neeson) in battle and years later (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) returns for revenge against the killer (Daniel Day Lewis). DiCaprio has been institutionalized for over a decade, and his seething anger hides behind a seemingly calm but determined demeanor. DiCaprio manages to worm his way into Lewis's circle, becoming one of his few confidantes, only awaiting the moment to strike. A rather nasty streetwalker/petty thief (Cameron Diaz) begins a love/hate relationship with him. While it's nice to see women in this era being portrayed realistically, there's nothing nice about her as she is quite crafty for such a soft looking lass.While the layout of the city hasn't changed, architecture has, and the Five Points area of downtown Manhattan looks nothing like this now. Real life famous New Yorkers of the time (or infamous in the case of Boss Tweed) appear throughout; The head of Tammany hall who created much of the hatred between the Irish immigrants and the natives is also joined by Horace Greeley (the man honored with a park near 34th and 6th Avenue) and the Schemmerhorn family, and views of their lavish Fifth Avenue homes are seen, both as splendid reminders of an old glamorous midtown now gone and as the subject for violent break-ins that certainly ended up with brutal murders of some of them. While DiCaprio and Diaz are excellent, it is Lewis who commands most of the attention with his brutish characterization outlined with an earthy charm. The film made me feel like I went back in time over 150 years, and even though there are other other eras of New York history I'd prefer to visit, I'm glad I got to spend nearly three hours in reel time as opposed to real time. As well made as this is, I found it more than just a little repulsive overall, and certainly won't be revisiting this like other modern classics. Technically and historically, it is brilliant, but I cannot praise this as the masterpiece that it's been made out to be.Violent and disturbing, this does still feel as if it is being somewhat truthful, even though it's a bit too exploitative as far as the sexuality and bloodshed are concerned. There's a few presumed homosexual prostitutes seen among the street whores, dressed in women's clothing, acting rather mincing, yet still showing facial hair, and it's interesting to see a subject of ancient New York history that prior to the 20th century little is known about. I found their being right out in the open rather far-fetched, however, and I wonder the reasons for director Martin Scorsese including such characters in a story that didn't require them. The historical aspect of this era should be documented on film as it has been here, but the rancid atmosphere prevents it from pulling me in completely. Nothing has changed much outside the architecture, automobiles and most unfortunately, technology.
