Gangs of New York (Two-Disc Collector's Edition) Reviews

• Where is the director's cut?!?!

  
  By A361JIPRX9EX9M on 2003-05-28
  One of the big controversies surrounding this film was that Martin Scorcese was forced to cut nearly an hour of footage from his final vision in order to get the studio to release it. That's understandable, as not many people will be willing to sit through a 4 hour movie in theatres. So with the release of it on DVD, we should get the complete version, right? Well... it doesn't seem so.

  The details on this DVD mention nothing about extra footage. Isn't one of the benefits of the DVD format that we get to see what the director intended before politics and marketing step in? I for one would like to see the COMPLETE movie, the movie that Scorcese wanted to make, rather than the movie which was released, even though that movie was quite good.

  I have a feeling that the studio is just doing the usual DVD scam of releasing the theatrical version as soon as possible to catch people while they are still hyped on this movie from the theatrical release and post-Oscar boost. After a few months, hopefully they will release a director's cut, causing many people to go back and buy the DVD a second time. I, for one, will wait as long as it takes until the full version comes out. I'm sick of getting scammed by these studios into buying one version, and then seeing a "special edition" with all sorts of extras come out a few months later. Not gonna happen this time, buddy-boy.
  
  

• An amazing film

  
  By on 2003-05-16
  I have never like Leonardo DiCaprio. To me, he has never been what I would call an actor. They certainly could have found someone better to play his part. But he did an alright job. I'll give him that.

  2. Daniel Day Lewis stole the entire film. Now there is an actor. I walk away from all of his films feeling satisfied. I wish he would have won that oscard but Adrien Brody did do a good job in the pianist so I can't complain

  I thought this film had a well rounded cast. I even thought that Cameron Diaz did a good job but that is also because I have had a big crush on her since Theres something about Mary.

  Finally, Martin Scorcese. What else can I say about him? Aside from spielberg, he's the best director around and this film just comfirms it.

  I would recommend that you be your own judge when you see this film, don't go by what other people are saying. That's why they invented chocolate ice cream. Because not everybody likes vanilla.
  
  

• This Movie Gets 4 Stars Because...

  
  By A38U2M9OAEJAXJ on 2003-01-26
  1.) It's an unflinchingly realistic story of an Irish immigrant (Amsterdam, played by Leonardo DiCaprio) who vows to avenge the cold murder of his father by the gang leader of the "natives" (Cutting, played by Daniel Day Lewis).

  2). At 2 hours and 45 minutes, "Gangs of New York" moves at a brisk pace that keeps the viewer hooked to the screen.

  3). Daniel Day Lewis is absolutely electrifying as Will Cutting, the ruthless butcher who is Amsterdam's sworn enemy. (Cameron Diaz's role, however, is completely disposable and DiCaprio's performance starts off strong, but flies off the rails by the end of the movie.)

  4). Director Marty Scorcese is a gifted storyteller, and in this movie, he doesn't gloss over the blatant racism and social unrest that pervaded New York City in the mid 1800's.

  Is it Scorcese's masterpiece? No, it isn't. It also doesn't live up to the hype generated by some critics who gush over this movie. But it is a solid, raw, and thoroughly entertaining film that's not for the thin-skinned or squeamish.

  Grade: B+
  
  

• First 2/3s of movie magnificient last 1/3 falls apart

  
  By AQP1VPK16SVWM on 2003-07-04
  Overshadowed by the controversy over lobbying for Academy Award nominations, Gangs of New York is a visually stunning but flawed minor classic from director Martin Scorsese. The film concerns a forgotten period in New York City's history when a variety of gangs controlled the five corners area. Corrupt politicians, the draft (for the Civil War) and a massive wave of immigrants created a turbulent environment. A huge anti-immigrant campaign helped fuel the many conflicts between the various gangs. Scorsese also incorporates a real riot that occuried during this time. The riot required army troops to come in and prevent further looting and murder.

  The basic story focuses on the conflict between two rival groups--the Natives led by Bill "the Butcher" and the Dead Rabbits an Irish immigrant group led by "Priest" (Liam Neeson). Their conflict leads to the death of Priest witnesses by his young son Amsterdam (later played by Leonard DiCaprio). The Butcher arranges to have the child sent to a Reform school where he's raised by Catholic Priests.

  Upon his release Amsterdam goes looking for Bill with revenge his primary goal. What Amsterdam finds is a changed world; the Natives control much of the corrupt police force and politicians in the five corners area. Bill is well regarded and, in fact, many of the Priest's old gang members work for Bill now. Amsterdam eventually meets Bill and is treated like a son by Bill. This creates a considerable conflict as Amsterdam has developed a gruding respect for the terrifying Butcher. His life is further complicated when he becomes involved with a woman (Cameron Diaz)who was saved by the Butcher as a child.

  The production design is stunning capturing a time in New York's history that had been long forgotten by many of its residents. The shacks, stores and buildings that make up the five corners area have an authentic appearence to them. Scorsese and his production designer Dante Ferretti manage to make the audience not only feel the environment but taste and smell it as well. Director of photography Michael Ballhaus lighting brings a rustic feel to the environment.

  The major problem with the film is the screenplay. It clearly passed through a number of hands besides the three screenwriters credited (Jay Cocks, Steven Zallian and Kenneth Lonergon). The first two-thirds of the film are classic Scorsese; there's a vibrantcy to the script missing from the last third. That's the problem with the film--it's two-thirds a classic. During the last act the film literally falls apart and is very narratively disjoined. It's clear that Scorsese had a much longer cut of the film in mind; there's a lot that appears to be missing from the film cut, no doubt, to make the already long running time (167 minutes) functional for a movie theater. Since this is the DVD edition, I'm surprised that Scorsese didn't go back and recut the film adding extended dramatic sequences that might have made the last third a stronger act.

  The acting by Daniel Day-Lewis (completely immersed in his character of Bill) is stunning. His falt, slightly rounded New York accent is as much a part of the character as can be imagined. The rest of the cast give varying performances with varying success when it comes to their Irish accents. Leonard DiCaprio makes a valient attempt to equal Day-Lewis but ultimately comes up slightly short of the perfection of Day-Lewis' performance. Still, he's believable in the role and manages to command your attention when he's on screen.

  Cameron Diaz also makes a game attempt with her role. Her character really doesn't come to life until the middle of the film. Henry Thomas (E.T., Psycho 4) gives a memorable and solid performance as Amsterdam's friend. It's a role that could have been pushed into the shadows by the lead character but Thomas invests his character with a quiet, powerful presence.

  Scorsese's direction is sharp and it's clear he's thought long and hard about how he wanted to present this picture. His confident direction keeps the momentum of the film from dragging and, until the last act, he knows exactly where he's going and what he's trying to achieve.

  The DVD transfer is, generally, exceptional. The picture is nearly flawless with few of the digital compression problems that have marred similarly epic films. There's virtually no analog artifacts and the print used here is crisp, clear and clean. The 5.1 sound mix and is also representative of what you might have heard in the theater. There were some problems with the discs. The first disc ends rather abruptly. There's a scene on the second disc where the music is mixed a bit too loud for the sequence and there appears to be other sounds leaking through the mix that shouldn't be there.

  The extras are profuse. There's a nicely done costume design feaurette and a sequence where the audience can explore the sets for the film. Additionally, there's a documentary (originally shown on The Discovery Channel)that focuses on this little known time from New York's past. It's much more than a glorified promo for the film. Scorsese's commentary is, shall we, say effusive and interesting. His intelligent comments and observations make the film come alive a second time. While I like U2, I could have done without the music video and would much rather have seen an a couple of interviews with Day-Lewis and other cast members on their craft.

  While it's a flawed film, Gangs of New York captures Scorsese in top form throughout most of the film. If the film doesn't hang together the way it should, it's probably due to the fact that Scorsese had to trim more from the film than he would have liked (how else to explain Neeson's appearence in what amounts to a glorified cameo?). Scorsese takes considerable risk in telling the type of story that isn't in vogue with Hollywood any longer. Gangs is an intelligent, well acted drama with a larger than life performance by Daniel Day-Lewis that makes up for some of the films shortcomings. I'd suggest renting it first and, if you like it, move on to purchasing it.
  
  

• Cinema at it's Best

  
  By A1NPNGWBVD9AK3 on 2003-09-21
  Whether talking about great literature or great movie making, one of the hallmarks of both is for a creative hand to draw a portrait of a perfectly realized time or place that would not have occured to us, had not some genius come along and showed it to us. Tolkien's Middle Earth. Hugo's Paris sewers. Celine's nightmare, apocalyptic landscapes. Now we have Martin Scorsese's/Jay Cocks' warped, wonderful vision/hallucination of 19th century New York.

  I resided in NY for many years and I sometimes wondered where the term "Hell's Kitchen" originated. Now I know. This movie offers a bird's-eye/God's-eye perspective of a brutal, awesome slice of NYC history, concentrating on a small area of Manhatten known at the time as "Five Points." An area ruled over by Bill, "The Butcher" Cutting, the most amazing, gruesome, threatening personage to be depicted in the history of cinema, perhaps. The combination of Daniel Day Lewis and Martin Scorsese is positively lethal. Do not watch if you are currently taking heart medication. You remember those old adverts for The Screaming Skull? Well be advised that this pic will do major damage to your aorta if you're not careful. It is a postcard sent from the lower regions of the Inferno. A three + hour nightmare from the other side of the Styx. Don't forget to give Charon a good tip or your way back or you're likely to take up permanent residence! Not a happy prospect, trust me!! Rent (or follow my lead and purchase) this movie! This film didn't win any major Academy Awards? Brody over Daniel Day? What are those people smoking out there? Oh right. The really good stuff!! That explains it!!
  BEK
  
  

• Science Fiction
  By A1MC81HLJ6Z9ZQ on 2002-12-31
  This movie is a perfect, textbook example of why Hollywood is so awful. It does everything that bad movies do: the plot doesn't make any sense, it is completely unrealistic as to time and place, the motivations of the characters are contrived, it is sickeningly brutal and gory, and it fails to present even the simplest human virtue. It is, in fact, a classic example of post-modernism, in that it imprints the cynical and jaded world-view of its creators onto subject matter of which they show absolutely no understanding.

  The celluloid begins with a set-piece battle between two rival Irish gangs. Hundreds of grown men face each other--in broad daylight, and in the middle of one of the most civilized cities on the earth--holding axes, meat-cleavers, knives, clubs, daggers and pitchforks. They savagely attack one another and we get to see, thanks to the careful, loving attention of the filmmakers, the hacks, gashes, dead bodies, blood, gore and agony of the dearly departed. It is very touching. Except . . . c'mon. There is no way that this happened, in this way--without a policeman in sight--in New York City in 1846. It is stupidly unbelievable.

  The plot then follows the son of one of the slain leaders, DiCaprio's character, as he returns to the scene some fifteen years later to exact his revenge on his father's killer. He becomes the fellow's trusted aide, and has literally dozens of chances to kill him--in fact, he even saves his life once--before he finally decides to do the job. Why he waits so long is never explained. Also unexplained is why DiCaprio's love interest would have a relationship with the bad guy, and why the bad guy doesn't seem to care, except that maybe he does . . . who knows? It also doesn't make sense that the bad guy, Day-Lewis, hates the Irish--he goes to the docks to curse at them as they come off the boat--yet nevertheless employs dozens of them as his closest lieutenants.

  Here is what we are supposed to believe New York City was like in 1862: there are opium dens and they are frequented by city leaders; there are brothels where dozens of gorgeous women walk around nude, and where people fornicate openly on bar tables; there are catacombs, somewhere, where dozens of skulls are piled up and where Catholics can hide to get away from it all; the firemen set fires and the policemen are shake-down artists and murderers. All of this, surely, has some minor basis in fact, but to portray it so one-sidedly is just ridiculous. New York City, even with its vices, was not Rome, or Babylon, or Shanghai.

  Then we come to the characters, not one of whom is shown to have even the slightest redeeming quality. All are thieves, murderers, thugs, pickpockets, or crooked politicians. All are unshaven, unkempt, dirty or clothed in rags. None have families--no mothers, no fathers, no sons, no daughters, no cousins, no aunts, no uncles, no grandmas, no grandpas--which is just plain absurd if one knows anything at all about immigrant communities of this country, even to this day. None of these Irish practice their Catholicism, except towards the end, and then only as a means of sewing revolt. In other words, there is no tempering influence on the barbaric behavior in which nearly all of these characters engage, a completely contrived, indeed laughable situation.

  The love story is also typical Hollywood, which means of course that it really isn't love at all, but only uncontrollable lust, which is what Hollywood thinks love is. The DiCaprio character and the Diaz character practically shake in each other's presence, then finally mash their mouths together like a couple of demented inmates in a co-ed insane asylum. Please.

  But the insane asylum analogy is an apt one, in that this movie much more resembles an insane asylum than it does New York of 1862. It may as well take place on another planet or for that matter, or a completely made-up universe. It is a worthless piece of revisionist trash, with nothing--characters, story, history or theme--to give it any value whatsoever.
  
  

• The Best Film of 2002
  By A3AA8L78VD96G2 on 2003-05-06
  I saw this movie the day before it was released with a bunch of theater workers at an advanced screening. It was my most anticipated movie of 2002, and I was not disappointed. The film was magnificent. Martin Scorsese is a true artist, he knows how to make movies, and he knows how to entertain the audience.

  The story is familiar, but told beautifully. Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, Jim Broadbent, everyone was good, but the real star of the picture is Daniel Day-Lewis. Playing Bill the Butcher, Daniel Day-Lewis is miraculous, his performance is one of the best I have ever seen. This man is one of the best actors of our time, and this is quite possibly his best performance. Though he seems Bill seems like villain, he loves his country.

  The set is brilliantly made, I was in awe by how real everything was. The costumes were top notch, and the score was hauntingly beautiful. U2's song "The Hands That Built America" fit perfectly with the film, and it's a great song.

  I'm very disappointed that Gangs of New York didn't win any Academy Awards, but that doesn't take away the greatness of the film. I believe Scorsese deserved the Oscar. I believe Daniel Day-Lewis deserved the Oscar. I believe U2 deserved the Oscar. But though it went away Oscarless, Scorsese should be proud. He made a remarkable film that will be remembered. Just like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, GoodFellas, and his other films, Gangs of New York will stand the test of time and will be known as one of the legendary directors gerat achievements.
  
  

• Disappointing
  By A2C14FLQFXZJMR on 2004-05-06
  I was disappointed by this movie. Scorsese is one of the best American directors alive, and the story of New York City in the 1860s is a great subject, exactly the sort of thing Scorsese ought to excel at.

  But the whole project goes weirdly awry. The plot is trite and silly, the sort of boring revenge drama we've seen a hundred times before: It doesn't shed any light at all on the subject of New York in the 19th century. The cast is extremely uneven: Di Caprio is simply not credible as a prison-hardened gang leader (he's still a soft, spoiled, 20th century pipsqueak), Day-Lewis as the villain is so over-the-top he's funny (maybe he meant it to be that way?), and the great Liam Neeson is wasted (literally) in a brief appearance as Di Caprio's dad. Only the smaller roles are well cast, particularly Jim Broadbent as Boss Tweed. (And by the way, what was the Vampire Woman doing in the movie? She seems to have wandered in from the set of Road Warrior.)

  Worst of all, though, was the tone of the movie. It was completely off. From the acid-rock electric guitar solo that plays over the big fight scene at the beginning, to the pointlessly flashy visuals (it looked like Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge), to the ridiculous mischaracterization of race relations between Irish immigrant gangs and the blacks, to the offensive use of the Draft Riots (really a huge race riot) as mere background to a phony, anti-climactic duel between protagonist and antagonist--everything was just so weirdly conceived and utterly tone deaf.

  What went wrong? Scorsese seemed like the perfect choice to direct this movie, but he blew a great opportunity to tell a great story. Maybe he has no feel for any time period other than his own. What a shame.
  
  

• Aimless, helpless, ultimately pointless
  By A1VTHUZIN04QQW on 2003-01-03
  

  
  I went into this movie with high expectations. Because I expected it to rock like The Godfather, I avoided all teasers, spoilers, and even refused to watch the trailers or commercials. With Daniel Day Lewis, DiCaprio, and Diaz, I thought this would be a total blockbuster.
  

  
  This movie stunk. This movie is a good example of huge aspirations with the budget to back them, but no coherent plot. Who were the heroes in this movie? What was their goal? What about DiCaprio's lower abdomen puncture? I guess it miraculously healed in the catacombs. But why was he scarring himself on the cheek later in the movie? There are so many loose ends in this flick that it drove me nuts.
  

  
  This movie is supposed to be about the gangs that ruled the underworld of old New York City, circa 1860s. Anyone who's read about New York knows that the street gangs of that day and age were pretty bad. In a city of about 800,000, you had close to 50,000 gangsters, 30,000 prostitutes and white slaves, and about 20,000 pickpockets. It was definitely a colorful and dangerous world about which a cool story could be told.
  

  
  This movie attempts to do so, but it first has to disregard the fact that it doesn't even show the gangs in a positive light. If you're going to root for the gangsters, you have to show how they're at least the good guys, right? But no, all it shows DiCaprio, Lewis and Diaz doing is robbing, stealing, killing, smoking opium, and fighting one another. How could you possibly care about these folks? They're the worst kind of scum imaginable. And what was the deal with Diaz's abortion? Why did it happen? The movie never explains that, only that she has a big scar from a back-alley type abortion.
  

  
  I suppose you could root for DiCaprio, since the movie was ostensibly about him getting revenge for his father's slaying. at the hands of Daniel Day Lewis. But by the time you get to that point, you like Lewis's character more than DiCaprio's. So, the movie implies a bunch of stuff about the corruption of America, how politicians and rich people are evil, and how the country exploits immigrants. Granted, there are lots of ways to show the underclass rooting against oppression and corruption, but you first have to make it look like the underdogs are worthy of triumph, which this movie didn't do. By the end, you're just glad they are killing themselves off.
  

  
  At the very least, you'd think you could get some good violence out of the movie. But, no, it's all implied violence. You hear the knife hit and the actor starts choking. This gets annoying, because you don't actually see what's happening. A point in case is when, in the bar, people are betting on some type of match between a dozen rats and a terrier. They throw all the animals into a pit, but they dont' show what the dog and rats are doing? Is the terrier supposed to kill them all in some amount of time, or you lose the bet? Well, it doesn't say, it just distracts you for a minute.
  

  
  Throughout the movie, it shows the rich people of New York as being a hundred times better than the underclass. Yet, I guess, we were supposed to root for the underclass. The rich set up missions and charities in the impoverished areas, the rich are clean and reverent and civil, so, when the gangs start killing them during the draft riot scene, you only feel bad for them. I'm not sure this was the director's intention. In fact, the director's intentions were totally lost in this mess.
  

  
  There was also something in this movie about the US being bad, and the American dream being corrupt and, ultimately, dying. But this was dealt with so loosely and ineptly that you couldn't help but laugh at the cliches and overt symbolism. Daniel Day Lewis, a rabid American 'native,' had a glass eye with an eagle in it. After federal troops and ironclads blow the hell out of the rioters in the end of the flick, and Lewis' eyelids close over the eagle eye, I think I was supposed to feel like our country had lost something great. But what was lost? This guy was a total barbaric gangster, I was glad he was dead. But I would have been happier if DiCaprio died. He's a good actor, but the only expression he was allowed to give in this movie was the furrowed brow.
  

  
  Speaking of acting, Daniel Day Lewis did a great job. But his efforts were totally lost on this mess. DiCaprio really didn't have much to work with.
  

  
  Another thing that was unintentionally hilarious was DiCaprio's 'maiming.' Lewis was supposed to have disfigured him so he would walk among the poor of Five Points in shame for his betrayal. In the next scene, DiCaprio is healing in a catacomb, and it's all shot in shadow, so you expect DiCaprio is going to be totally deformed. Well, the only disfigurement he suffers is a little burn scar on one cheek. He still looks better than almost all the guys in the flick! Weak. Also, he somehow miraculously healed from a knife wound to the lower abdomen, which, even in these days, is almost guaranteed to provide you with a colostomy bag for the rest of your life. And at the end of the movie, he gets hamstrung on each leg by Lewis, but is somehow able to walk without a limp. Hmmmm.
  

  
  Also, if you were wondering how he got so many scars on his chest, yes, the ones that Diaz so poignantly kisses during the love scene, well, that's answered almost at the end of the movie when DiCaprio is caught inexplicably cutting his own cheek with a razor. This makes almost as much sense as Lewis walking around wrapped in an American flag and talking about all his evil deeds.
  

  
  The worst part of the movie may have been the riot montage, over which there was a 1930's style radio announcer voiceover. This is intercut with images of men tapping out telegrams, so you know the voiceover is by people reading the telegrams. This almost works, but it doesn't.
  

  
  This movie was a total waste of celluloid. I guess you could give it stars for set design, casting, and costumes, but the lack of a coherent plot and the total inability of the director to develop any semblance of good guys or bad guys in this movie takes away from that. If you love Scorsese and were hoping for a great film, you won't get it. Definitely save yourself a couple of hours and a couple dollars by waiting for the rental release on DVD, which, given the unpopularity of this flick, won't follow long after the theatrical release.
  

  
  -- JJ Timmins
  
  

• ***** FLAWED MASTERPIECE *****
  By A1YHKSTVSYEYTU on 2003-01-21
  Gangs of New York is the much vaunted, much delayed and long awaited Martin Scorcese 19th-century gang warfare epic. Breathtaking in its scale and attention to detail, it boasts wonderful sets, an excellent screenplay, flawless direction, an excellent supporting cast and top-notch acting from Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz and (in particular) Daniel Day Lewis as the villainous, barbaric Bill `The Butcher' Cutting. Yet masterpiece as this undoubtedly is, it still has its flaws.

  Much of the pre-release media attention for 'Gangs' has chiefly been about speculation surrounding stormy clashes between Miramax producer, Harvey Weinstein and Director Martin Scorcese (who despite being currently Oscarless is considered by many critics to be America's greatest living film Director). The core of this speculation is that, although Gangs of New York weighs in at a healthy 168 minutes, Scorcese would have preferred that as much as an extra hour of film had been kept off Oscar-winning editor Thelma Schoonmaker's floor. Perhaps as a result of the nasty butcher's work (Weinsten not Day Lewis if we are to believe the rumours), the second act of the film has a more rushed feel to it, with a lot more jumping from scene to scene and a large increase in the use of voice overs to explain to the audience what they are witnessing. It would also explain why in one scene we see young master DiCaprio about to have his face horribly scarred by Butcher Bill Cutting's white hot knife, yet almost miraculously two scenes later said scar has faded to almost nothing and young Leos face, previously mashed by headbutts, has made a miraculous recovery. You can almost imagine Harvey Weinstein's horror at the suggestion of Leo's famously handsome face being disfigured and the effect this might have on any potential female teenage audience; "no, not the face Martin, please not the face" he may have exclaimed.

  Quibbles aside, Gangs of New York is 168 minutes of top drawer film-making that continuously excites and holds the audiences attention, so much so that it actually feels about an hour shorter. Opening in 1846 with a battle for the streets of New York in the slum-like Five Points district in an ironically titled Paradise Square, between two rival gangs. Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) is head of the Dead Rabbits gang whom he leads into armed conflict against the Natives led by Bill Cutting (Day Lewis) and a brutal and bloody battle it is, with much crunching and slashing of flesh and bone. Sixteen years later Priest Vallon's son, calling himself Amsterdam (DiCaprio), returns to the Five Points to seek out revenge for his father's brutal death at the hands of Bill the butcher, who oblivious to young Amsterdam's heritage adopts him as a surrogate so. 'When you kill a king you do not stab him in the back, but before the whole court so they can see him die,' explains the young master Vallon.

  Central to the success of this film is Daniel Day Lewis's towering performance as the charismatic psychopath Bill Cutting, who considers himself a native American (although clearly not of Indian heritage). As part of this belief Butcher Bill is disagreeable to all things foreign but in particular the ever increasing Irish Immigrants, with their Catholic faith, flooding off the boats in search of a new life away from the potato famine and poverty of their homeland. A hypocritical bigot of the first degree Bill proclaims to his young Irish protégé Amsterdam; "On the seventh day the Lord rested. He squatted by England and made a mess there called Ireland - no offence." This is Daniel Day Lewis's first movie since 1997's "The Boxer", after apparently deciding to retire from acting to apparently become a maker of shoes in Florence, Italy. Whether this is totally true or popular myth is inconsequential for with this performance Day Lewis once again reminds us of his enormous talent which previously brought him an Academy Award for his portrayal of Christy Brown in "My Left Foot". According to Martin Scorcese it took months of persuasion to tempt Day Lewis out of retirement but once Day Lewis took on the role he remained in character throughout the whole film shoot, even to the extent that everybody addressed him as Bill even when the cameras were not rolling. However, Day Lewis's portrayal of Butcher Bill is not the only performance worth mentioning with both DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz both faring reasonably well in such illustrious company. There are also excellent supporting performances from the likes of Jim Broadbent and Brendan Gleeson both perfectly cast in their roles as William 'Boss' Tweed and Monk McGinn. May I also add that it was nice to see ET's Henry Thomas making an appearance in a supporting role as Amsterdam's friend (and would-be Judas) Jonny.

  This ambitious movie is a magnificent spectacle, wonderfully acted, beautifully Directed and a wonderful triumph for Martin Scorcese, which will hopefully be recognised with a long overdue golden statuette come March 23rd. Although the heavy editing of The Gangs of New York robs us of some of the character development and background to the young Vallon building up his own gang of reformed Dead Rabbits, it only makes me all the more enthusiastic at looking forward to the hopefully inevitable Director's cut. When after watching a 168 minute movie you still wish for a longer version, then you know you must have just witnessed something special.
  
  

• Scorsese should have partnered with R. Brian Ferguson
  By A2KG8WLR1AKO12 on 2002-12-25
  Martin Scorsese remained too loyal to Herbert Asbury's 1927 book, The Gangs of New York. The journalist was like so many of his era: he rarely let a few facts get in the way of a good story. Alas, this movie is far too similar to John Carpenter's two decades earlier Escape from New York. Scorsese provides us with a hyperbolic, if not even a comic book view, of the Civil War era lower Manhattan east side called the Five Points where crime and hideous poverty dominate the landscape. The pessimistic political philosopher Thomas Hobbes would have felt right at home. Life for many of the inhabitants is indeed nasty, brutal and short. Democratic values might be abstractly of interest, but staying alive is a full time consuming endeavor. The police and politicians are corrupt and one's safety is more likely determined by securing the protection of the local gang leaders. A very young Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) witnesses the brutal death of his father by the knife welding Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis). Some fifteen years later Amsterdam seeks revenge. Along the way he falls in love with pickpocket Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz). The violence is plentiful and Scorsese makes sure that we witness the gore up close and personal. We are superficially introduced to the themes of racial, ethnic, and religious bigotry. Nevertheless, the central purpose of this film is the bloodshed and we are never allowed to forget it.

  Scorsese should have attempted to be more historically accurate. Why didn't he contact scholars like cultural anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson of Rutgers University in New Jersey? The latter unhesitatingly contends that the previously mentioned Asbury exaggerated when claiming that "a decent person couldn't walk through this area without getting their ear bit off, and that just wasn't the case." There were indeed colorful gangs named the Plug Uglies, Dead Rabbits and Bowery Boys. But while they were not exactly angels, their power never truly rivaled that of the city's authorities. Is Scorsese possibly unwilling to listen to advice contradicting the original vision of a project which captures his imagination? My guess is that the great director tolerates no dissent from those working with him. Does this mean you shouldn't see this film? On the contrary, Daniel Day-Lewis is among our greatest living actors and alone guarantees that the Gangs of New York is well worth your time. You will never forget his interpretation of this sadistic, yet ironically honorable, slaughterer of men. Lewis pushed the character as far as he could without falling into the trap of caricature. Scorsese also knows how to put together a beautiful film. His talent in this regard is only a step below that of the ultimate master, Stanley Kubrick. This is a four and a half star movie.
  
  

• AMAZING!
  By on 2003-05-18
  This was hands down the best picture of 2002, and so far 2003. Chicago was okay, but compared to this masterpiece in cinema it doesn't even come close. I happen to think Martin Scorcese released this movie at the wrong time. If he had waited,perhaps people would have been a little more accepting of what he was trying to explain, and not just think of it as a blood and guts movie. Though it had a lot of violence I believe it was his way of convincing you that this was a terrible time in American history, the time they don't teach you about in High School history classes. Scorcese completely got robbed by all of the members of the academy, simply because they are obviously shallow minded and not willing to realize that these things actually did happen and we should never forget them. Instead of chosing an actual best picture worthy movie they must have gotten blinded by the bright lights of Chicago. All of the actors that participated in this wonderful movie were incredible, especially Daniel Day-Lewis. How amazing was he? Though Adrian Brody did do a really good job, Daniel just blew me away. Hopefully someday people will understand what Scorsece was trying to tell use, unfortunately by that time, it might be to late.
  
  
• A Colossal Nothing
  By A24G1H61L0TQHN on 2003-01-06
  "Gangs of New York" goes to show you...fantastic sets, costumes, and cinematography do not a movie make. The film lacks a coherent plot, believable and/or sympathetic characters, and thematic significance. (Not that a film needs thematic significance, but this one takes itself so seriously...)

  Lots of irritating details. To mention a couple...At one point, Daniel Day-Lewis reads a newspaper and doesn't know the meaning of "ghoul". Elsewhere he displays eloquence and vocabulary on par with an English professor. (And incidentally--how does a man with one eye toss knives, axes, and cleavers around with such pinpoint accuracy? I thought that required depth perception.)

  A larger thing. DiCaprio moves about with such subtlety nobody in the film or the audience can figure out whether he is out for revenge. Yet his plan, when (finally) launched, could not be any more stupid, hopeless, or cowardly.

  In general, the characters have few if any redeeming qualities. Instead we have violence for the sake of violence. It seems like Scorcese has made a morality play, but if I may be so bold--in a morality play it would be nice to have at least one character with a little morality. The only scene in the film that was remotely inspiring to me was the final one, where we see New York gradually morph into the city it is today. Yet...there's no way the butchery, wickedness, and hatred I had been watching for three hours could possibly lead to such magnificence. So what's the point of this scene? If Scorsese wanted to make a movie about the triumph of good versus evil, he filmed the wrong story. The more interesting story was the one about Liam Neeson and his struggle against Daniel Day-Lewis. That got told by Day-Lewis in a few minutes-worth of monologue, yet it was the only part of the movie that seemed halfway real to me. That story means something, but the one we actually see means nothing, and we have to endure it in a big way.
  
  

• May be Scorsese's greatest work.
  By A2K5HUOODN5VJX on 2003-06-06
  Perhaps it was inevitable that Gangs Of New York would recieve such a cold shoulder from critics, the Academy, and the viewing public. Every time Martin Scorsese has presented us with one of his greatest, most personal films, he has been shot down, his vision dismissed as hogwash, only to be accepted as a great film years later.

  Case in point: Raging Bull was widely panned by many upon its first release, and Scorsese was passed over for Robert Redford's Ordinary People, a good but far inferior film. Raging Bull is now recognized as one of the greatest of all American films. When Scorsese released his most personal film, The Last Temptation Of Christ, it was met with controversy and disdain. Again he was passed over come award time, and now his Jesus bio is seen as one of the greatest films to tackle the subject of Jesus Christ.

  I felt that Gnags Of New York was a fantastic film, and upon seeing it, I walked out of the theatre feeling that I had seen a film that would immediately be accepted as one of Scorsese's greatest films. How wrong I was.

  Yet I don't understand the cold shoulder in this case, because there is so much to like about Gangs Of New York. We've all said great things about the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis, but his great performance overshadowed Leonardo DiCaprio's, which wasn't all that bad. I personally think we all need to get over Titanic; this kid can act. Cameron Diaz is fine in her role; note the scene in which she and DiCaprio discuss her abortion. She shows that she is just as good a dramatic as she is a comic actress.

  The costume design and art direction is impeccable. Scorsese and his crew perfectly captured the New York of the Civil War era. Reviewers have argued that New York couldn't look that bad. As a history student, I can assure you that it did.

  Finally, no one has seemed to notice that Scorsese has made a picture that combines the greatest of his influences. Gangs Of New York captures the best of Italian neorealism and grand classic Hollywood spectacle. In combining the two, he has made what may be his greatest film: a melding of De Sica and Fellini, John Huston and D.W. Griffith, into a style that is uniquely Scorseseian. Gangs Of New York rushes along in its two hour, 45 minute running time. Never once did I find it boring or slow moving.

  So to those who have said it is a bad picture, I pose this challenge: How would you change it? I've heard lots of criticism but few solutions. Perhaps there are so few solutions because Scorsese has made a picture so perfect that it is impossible for many of us to comprehend its depth.
  
  

• This "Native" was disappointed.
  By A2ELX1OSIHRDBY on 2003-12-30
  I don't even know where to begin. I gave this movie one star because the only thing I liked about it was the fact that there was a movie during the civil war in the New York. That never happens. I'm a history buff. I love period films. I love movies that take place in New York. I didn't like this movie. First off. DiCaprio was miscast bigtime. Should have been Depp or someone else. I have no feeling on Diaz. She could have stayed or left. Whatever. Day-Lewis was good for whatever that was worth. The title was wrong. Yes, there were tons of GANGS in NEW YORK but that was NOT what the story was about! The film was long for nothing. a chunk could have been cut out in the middle and we would have not really skipped a beat as far as the story was concerned. Scorcese was trying to tell too many stories instead of sticking to the main one. Not usually his style. Characters weren't developed. Overproduced. Sloppy. Uggh! I couldn't wait for it to end. I was exhausted. Skip it.
  
  
• There's A Much Better Movie on the Same Theme
  By A35EPFF31VO7D2 on 2004-05-23
  I agree with all the other reviewers below who were disappointed in this movie. They have spelled out all the reasons why I, too, was let down by it.

  I also agree with a previous reviewer who recommended instead the great Brazilian movie "City of God". That person is right: "City" is everything "Gangs" should have been. It brilliantly tells the story of two generations of violent gangsters in a squalid, no-hope slum, and how people got sucked into a life of crime and could never escape. It is an unforgettable movie, unlike Scorsese's recent dud.
  
  

• Coping with the propaganda
  By A2D7ZEAA92UCUA on 2003-01-02
  Let me suggest a couple strategies to cope with the overwhelming propaganda surrounding this awful movie:

  STRATEGY 1: Don't see this movie until somebody you know personally gives you their feedback - preferably somebody that does not tend to consider themself a movie sophisticate. Be suspicious of reviews that dwell on Martin Scorsese and his resume (like many of positive reviews here and elsewhere). When you pay to see Gangs of New York, you will not actually meet Mr. Scorsese, nor will you see any of his previous works - you will only see Gangs of New York, which is terrible.

  STRATEGY 2: If you can't resist the propaganda and you're compelled to put your money down, only see this movie in one of those multi-theatre complexes where you can walk out and see something else. If you don't thoroughly enjoy the first 10 minutes, leave immediately. For the most part, you'll only miss an additional 158 minutes of knifings. True, the filmmaker later adds-in gunfire, and even some cannons toward the end. Also true, the blood-moisten snow later becomes puddles of blood, and eventually a spurting stream at the climax. But theses desperate attempts to distract you from the broken plot, unbelievable characters, and their even less believable relationships will ultimately fail. You'll just find yourself increasingly annoyed at the film's historical pretense, as well as all its other transparent attempts at manipulation.

  EXCEPTIONS: Consider seeing this movie if:

  (1) You're profoundly A.D.D. and frequently enjoy violent video games.
  (2) You're a very close relative of Daniel Day-Lewis. For almost everyone else, his exceptional performance is insufficient consolation for the embedding failure. When he wins his Oscar, the propaganda will crescendo. Just stick to the above strategies.
  
  

• Revisionist History <> Intense NYC Anti-Draft Riots
  By A2OE2OXN00MRHN on 2003-01-19
  ..... Similar to the 19th Century novels about London by Charles Dickens (like Oliver Twist), this movie by Martin Scorsese goes into gory detail about the seamy underbelly of the great American metropolis of the same period, New York City. "Gangs of New York" has been called revisionist history because it is the opposite of the Victorian Era portrayal of the earlier part of the 19th Century as the "Good Old Days". Unlike cinema of past decades, most actors here do not wear clean clothes or serve as role models.

  ..... Far from the notion of the Good Old Days, this saga of the Five Points ghetto of NYC's Manhatten around 1844 and 1863 shows the horrow of the squallor where Natives battled Immigrants over turf in the tenements.

  ..... This portrayal of the events leading up to the NYC anti-draft riots of July 1863 uses the method of historical fiction whereby the lives of unknown individuals are mixed into known histories. Gangs of NY superimposes the deadly conflict between two people (Leonardo DiCaprio as Amsterdan Vallon and Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting) as the spark that ignites the anti-draft riots.

  ..... The film gives an insider's view of 1863 Manhatten with inter-gang battles, corrupt Boss Tweed of Tamanny Hall, and wealthy uptown scoundrels. The real heavyweight is the Union army, trying desparately to conscript soldiers for the nation's first mandatory military call to arms.

  ..... I recommend this movie for history buffs who follow the civil war, and other conflicts of past centuries. It shows graphic blade and bludgeon combat, which is not for the faint of heart, and a few love scenes with mild nudity. It you want to feel happy this week (January 2003), go see "Maid In Manhattan". It you have young kids, "The Wild Thornberrys Movie" is for you.

  ..... The ending cannot be called happy. Lets call it a fitting end to a bitter conflict that would take more than a century to end. As long as Irish versus English rivalry persists, the ethnic groups involved in this saga will continue to have bitter hatred. Martin Scorsese is a master director, and Leonard DiCaprio is a top star. They only pick screenplays they want to take part in.

  ..... This is another intense choice by these artists, and history teachers should thank them for making history come alive. Critics may dispute this saga's authencity, but that should spur them to delve into the books that are the best judge of this epic's authenticity.
  
  

• What a terrible movie!
  By A16Y12HW90IYOY on 2003-07-13
  After sitting through 2 disc's waiting for something good to happen...

  I'm still waiting.
  
  

• A waste of time
  By A2UDSLXX9SJC00 on 2004-03-07
  I was really excited when this movie came out. Instead what I saw was a three hour waste of time. The stellar cast did well enough with what they had, but the script was not well written. The movie jumps from plot to plot, with many unneccessary scenes. And just when you think we've settled into a plot line for the rest of the movie, bam! The actors are off with some new unplausible story. The ending stretched for far too long, and was not a satisfying conclusion to the movie. The elements were all there for movie of the century, but it didn't come anywhere near expectations. The critics were so wrong this time. You're not missing anything if you pass on this movie.
  
  
• Not Worth One's Admiration, Sympathy or Pity!
  By A2VD2D1QHCMF9Q on 2005-07-01
  You'll need a strong stomach for this one. No doubt there was a deep seated prejudice against the Irish immigrants in the 19th century, there was crime in New York, anti-Lincoln feeling, and race riots occurred there also. But this movie made one think that there was nothing but hate, poverty and riots in Manhattan. Don't believe it!
  
  It is hard to know what the movie was trying to say. Was it a social statement or a Hamlet-like tale about revenge. Everyone was shown as corrupt including the Mayor and his people, the leaders of the gangs, the police and the armed forces, the outstanding newspaper publisher in the City and the protagonist and his love interest. How did the City ever get to the 20th century?
  
  The movie had little focus, lots of violence, mostly unnecessary violence, and there was no one worth one's admiration, sympathy or pity.
  
  
  
• Godawful Blu Ray disk
  By A25654F6R2GT87 on 2008-06-24
  Disney just slapped the old transfer made for the DVD on this BD disk. The DVD was notorious for bad image quality with grotesquely overdone digital sharpening and noise filtering. The Blu Ray is the same, justh with additional resolution to see all the uglyness with enhanced clarity.
  This is a crap transfer that should be withdrawn immediately or it will damage Disney's reputation of releasing high quality HD disks. Yes, it is this bad compared to the state of the art from Disney and other studios.
  
  
• Bloody, meaningless, gory, no plot, PLAIN GARBAGE
  By A22SUC9PIDJO3A on 2004-12-31
  I cannot really believe that people actually like this movie. People nowadays only like movies when they are violent, bloody, and without any storyline worth watching.
  
  I went with a friend to the movie theatre to see what people were calling "a masterpiece" and we left a little over half way through because the movie made us both sick. The only interesting part in this movie was the first 15 minutes with Liam Neeson. After that scene, the movie went downhill fast.
  
  First of all, there was no story or plot. The film just went from one blood and guts scene to another. We stayed as long as we did because we thought, "this movie has been such a disappointment, it HAS to get better by improving and having a storyline." After discussing it with friends (after we had left the theatre), we learned that the storyline got no better whatsoever -- it was just more scenes of carnage all the way to the end. Why would anyone call this a masterpiece? A masterpiece would actually have to have some sort of intelligent plot or storyline. UGH
  
  Daniel-Day Lewis was laughable in his fake mustache and unbelieveably fake accent. He is a terrible actor and has never been good in anything I have ever seen him in. Why do so many people think he is good? I cannot imagine why.
  
  I do not write reviews trying to say one director is better or another director is better. A good movie may have a totally UNKNOWN director. The reviewers for this movie are all fixated and obsessed with Martin Scorcese. Who cares? Just because he directs something, it doesn't make it a good movie. Steven Spielberg has made some DUDs too. I have no respect for a director who cannot even come up with dialog/storyline worth making into a movie.
  
  Leonardo DiCaprio is awful, as usual. I suppose that is not saying much.
  
  Nothing makes this movie worth watching. It was boring, uninteresting, gory and without any redeeming quality. Why did anyone even bother? It was a waste of time and money. If I could give this movie a "negative-5 stars", I would.
  
  
• Boring Mess from a Once-Great Director
  By A2ZYG45K53IP2V on 2005-03-04
  "Gangs of New York" is almost pointless. Oh sure, there's something about xenophobia and the shabby treatment of Catholic immigrants in mid-19th-century New York, but this point is never developed. Actually, nothing much is developed in this movie. Characters and situations are introduced, then dropped altogether or forgotten about for long stretches before being awkwardly dragged in again.
  
  The main story is so old and stale I couldn't believe Scorsese would stoop to using it: Young boy sees father murdered, comes back years later to avenge him, infiltrates murderer's circle, begins to waver, gosh will the young avenger ever carry out his plan? Unless you have some really original twist to put on this hoary old plot, you had best stay miles away from it. Sad to say, Scorsese and his scriptwriters have absolutely nothing original in mind. It's just a dull, ineffective framing device for the movie.
  
  Then there's the totally anachronistic feel to the movie, starting from the very first scene. A big gang fight is staged like a scene from Mad Max full of garishly got-up freaks and scored to a hard-rock electric guitar soundtrack. There are the token black members of the Irish gang (yeah right, I'm sure that's historically accurate). The absolute nadir, though, was the depiction of the notorious New York City Draft Riots as some kind of glorious uprising of oppressed peoples against their racist oppressors, when in fact it was a vast lynching rampage in which pro-Confederate whites murdered dozens of black Americans. In the midst of this riot, we get a rather anti-climactic "duel" between hero and villain.
  
  Not since "Titanic" have I seen so much money and effort poured into such a lame, trite, ridiculous story. (Funny that they both starred this DiCaprio kid, who's also in Scorsese's latest snoozer. Are they lovers or something?) I don't know what has happened to Scorsese. He was once one of our brightest cinematic hopes. Maybe he's just going through a slump and will pull out of it soon. But after seeing "The Aviator" this weekend, I fear he may be in permanent decline.
  
  
• Scorsese's compromised epic
  By A2LICSQ2IFE3C5 on 2003-11-09
  Gangs of New York has a lot of problems. (1) Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio are miscast. They have no chemistry, Diaz' role is confusing, and DiCaprio appears to be stoned in almost every scene. (2) Their love affair is a needless distraction from the revenge plot. (3) The set design is amazing, but it seems to take up too much of the screen. It's anything but subtle. In Scorsese's other films, he creates a world to surround the characters, but he doesn't call attention to it. (4) The movie is split over two DVDs. There's no reason for it. I have other films of the same length on a single disc. The extras could have been placed on the second disc, and the entire film on the first. (5) There was a lot of controversy about the production of this film, including cost overruns and fights with the producer. That story is not mentioned anywhere on the two DVDs. It's a whitewash.

  And then there are the good things. (1) Jim Broadbent and Daniel Day-Lewis are great. I could watch those two guys all day. They work the scenery, they work the costumes, and they know when to overdo it to keep the story fun and colorful. (2) All of the historical moments are well-done. Scorsese has a knack for cutting away from the plot, giving you background, and then getting back to his characters. The best example is Casino, whre he spent the first 45 minutes teaching you about Las Vegas. Here, he shows you everything from immigration to racism to corrupt politics and draft fees. (3) The movie is packed with stunning shots, such as the moment at the beginning when Bill's gang silently emerges from between the houses to form a mob in the snow. Or the climax, with cannons firing into the city and looters storming the mansions. (4) Scorsese's audio track is worth listening to.

  Overall, Gangs of New York is a "chocolate cheeseburger" --- a movie that tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one. Scorsese should have edited it mercilessly, cutting out the romance (as much as possible) and paring it down to an ultra-violent 2-hour epic. He would have lost a few casual viewers, but they ended up offended or bored anyway. I recommend this to anyone who likes Scorsese movies, simply because its an important part of his body of work. But for those of you who stayed away because you thought you wouldn't like it --- well, you probably made the right choice.
  
  

• Day-Lewis gave up shoemaking for this mess?
  By A3L1RFRDUDMT9N on 2004-02-21
  I was really looking forward to seeing this movie, having grown up in NYC & steeped myself in its history. So I was very disappointed when I finally saw it.

  For one thing, it's very choppy & seems to spend most of its time getting started, orienting the audience, establishing some sort of exposition. As a result the Amsterdam character has far too many voice-overs, Leonardo DeCaprio not being the most forceful of vocal actors. There seems to be little flow or continuity in this film.

  There's no feel at all of the locale being New York City - it could just as well be Baltimore or Toronto or a Hollywood backlot & there's also very little *historical* sense in this film, either, other than in the sets & costumes. The staged brawls & celebrations & street fights & festivals seem a broad attempt at establishing a period atmosphere, but the scenes between any 2 characters could be from any period & any place, especially other movies.

  Jim Broadbent & Daniel Day-Lewis, otherwise admirable actors, seem lost in their characterizations & their accents are laughably strange, as though appropriated from old Bowery Boys movies. I thought that perhaps the Bowery Boys gang references in the movie were an inside joke because that's who they most sounded like: Muggsy & Satch.

  Too bad. Just think what someone like David Lean could have done with this material.
  
  

• Your time would be better spent counting tiles
  By on 2004-05-23
  Terrible, which is sad because it had so much promise. The beginning has a compelling hook, but the subsequent story falls exponentially downward. By the end, you are so far in the pit of apathy that you wonder if doing dishes would have been more exciting. The plot takes so many twists with no real adhesive theme that every half hour it feels like a different movie, and the writing is both cheesy and boring, making the characters completely unbelievable. DiCaprio and Diaz did a decent job of making their pathetic characters somewhat realistic, but honestly there is no saving this movie. The only better-than-average aspect is Daniel Day-Lewis' acting skills. He miraculously portrayed layers in his role and he was almost always believable, despite the writing. I suppose the cinematography, costume design, graphics, and other technical aspects were pretty good as well. Maybe they figured that super cool fighting scenes with lots of blood would keep people from realizing that the screenplay is devoid of any real quality. However, I firmly believe that this film proves the point that brilliant directors can make mediocre movies and still receive more credit than they deserve only because of their status. At the same time, truly innovative directors, because they don't have funds or access to well-known production corporations or large-scale PR gimmicks, are often overlooked. Don't get me wrong, I think Scorcese has done some excellent work in the film industry and I don't want to undermine his credibility. However, I don't think movies that look like they are scotch-taped together should get more praise than they deserve because they are attached to a well-known name. Bottom line: don't waste your time or money on "Gangs of New York" when you could spend a more productive 3 hours feeling the stucco on your wall.
  
  
• Think of Diaz, Think of Diaz, Think of Diaz...
  By A2B698QWUQRJ2K on 2004-10-22
  Leonardo DiCaprio was prettier than Cameron Diaz. As a heterosexual, I find this fact deeply disturbing.
  
  
• Cynical, Grotesque, Unrealistic Portrayal of the Times
  By A3CDJ2DVD5MZ3C on 2005-04-07
  I didn't for a moment believe that I was in the time and place upon which the movie was based. Leonardo DiCaprio has had some good roles, but he's simply not believable in this one. There are no likable characters. Over-the-top, excessive, and perverse violence ruined any semblance of a plot. Scorsese should be ashamed of himself. He once was a good director.
  
  
• Rambling, Incoherent
  By A11PTCZ2FM2547 on 2003-07-30
  It was all I could do to get through this marathon of a movie maize. A film should tell one story, not six or seven, then torture us with such inept miscasting as Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz. Daniel Day-Lewis tries gallantly to carry this movie, but he should've sued the cast, crew, writers and director for nonsupport. Instead of GANGS OF NEW YORK, this film should have been titled, "Butcher Bill's Mediocre Adventure."

  Incidentally, I know it's a period piece, and in 19th-Century New York personal hygiene wasn't high on most people's lists, but do we have to overdo it with hair that looks like it's been axle-greased to the scalp? Made me want to take a fire hose filled with Pert Plus to every actor.

  Martin Scorsese brings us gang violence, immigration, slums, sloth, class hatred, Tammany Hall corruption, and the Civil War draft in a movie as uneven as the Mississippi and as incoherent as my last mutual fund report. At least one hour too long, GANGS OF NEW YORK is guilty of studio overkill--no refund for three wasted hours, thank you very much.

  Think I'll go watch "West Side Story." The Sharks and the Jets. At least they don't need shampoo.
  --D. Mikels
  
  

• There Will Be Blood
• Batman Begins (Widescreen Edition)
• The Aviator (Two-Disc Special Edition)
• The Godfather - The Coppola Restoration Giftset (The Godfather / The Godfather Part II / The Godfather Part III) [Blu-ray]
• Kill Bill - Volumes 1 & 2 [Blu-ray] (Amazon.com Exclusive)