Gangs of New York

[Scott]

Just seen GANGS OF NEW YORK tonight. Good film with some good New York history I suppose. The film shows what a mess mankind is. It's an uninspiring film, but has enough insanity to keep you watching. You have to love the battles involving the Fire Departments and the Police show them as nothing more than gangs. Total chaos. Violent Violent film.

[Ash]

It had some good individual scenes but as a whole I felt that it failed.

You wait and wait and wait and wait until the final climax only to be sorely let down.

After the climax I said aloud, "WHAT A BUNCH OF s**t!!  I WAITED ALMOST 3 1/2 HOURS FOR THIS!?"

I was not happy.

As a period piece it was excellent in recapturing the poverty and feel of what it would've been like to live back then.

[Scott]

Yea, bottom line its just a good historical piece.

[NEC]

While I don't care to see the movie, I highly respect Scorcese and his dream of over 25 years to have this movie made.

[The Burgomaster]

I love this movie. Another excellent Scorsese film.

[Paul Hotbranch]

I started to watch it,but my roommate returned it before I could finish it.

[AndyC]

I have no interest in movies about modern gangs, but this was very interesting. It had good characters, I learned about a part of history I was not aware of, and I enjoyed it.

I found the climax to be quite satisfying. I liked the way the entire movie built up to the big confrontation, making it seem so important, and then the Civil War comes into the foreground, to show just how unimportant these big fish in their little pond really are.

[dean]

whilst i respect scorsese greatly, i have to mention that as a reliable historical source, it is very inaccurate.  it is purely based on story, not a proper account of what happened.  haven't seen it, but have no real urge to either.

i'm sure its great for some entertainment, after all we don't need actual facts to enjoy a movie, its just annoying how many people assume thats exactly how it was back then, when many facts are glossed over or dramatised to make it seem worse than it was, for the sake of its cinema essence.

nevertheless i hope the film is as good as it seems to have been recieved in this post regardless.

[Tranquil Featherman]

Do some real research on "histiry" and stop depending on movies as a history lesson.

[Paul Hotbranch]

"Braveheart"wasn´t THAT accurate either...

[Deej]

yup, i dug it. I agree about the climax though, wha' p**ser. I read Herbert Asbury's book about a year before the movie came out, and it's a pretty tight profile of the various gangs and characters that operated in New York in the 19th and early 20th century. And considering it was written by a Methodist minister, it's chock full of sex, violence and humor.

Jay Robert Nash's "Bloodletters and Badmen" also has some good entries relating to the old New York street gangs, the nut jobs who comprised them and the dives they hung out in. Pretty good stuff if you're interested.

[AndyC]

Oh, I never trust the historical "facts" in a fictional movie, but I can honestly say that  the idea of New York street gangs in the 1800s is something I'd never really thought about before.

Actually, when I saw this in the theatre, we were right behind a woman who was determined to pick it apart for the benefit of her companions. The problem was that she knew nothing about history. The things she found most ridiculous were some of the background events that really did happen.

[BoyScoutKevin]

A good historical film with great acting. (IMHO) Who ever won the best actor Oscar this year must have done a great job to beat out Daniel Day Lewis as Bill the Butcher.

This may not be Scorsese's best film, that is most likely "Taxi Driver," but even Scorsese at his half best, is better then most directors at their best. Again (IMHO)

Even if somewhat historically incorrect, the film is more historically correct then most films. Including the different police forces and fire fighting companies battling each other in the streets of New York City, which actually happened.

Before the film there was extensive excavations in the area seen in the film, which was the Five Points Area, and many of the artififacts dug out of the ground, were used in the film, which is good. Because the rest of the artifacts were stored in the World Trade Center, so we know what happened to them.
 
One of the things that is historically incorrect, and it is a majorly incorrect, though I understand why they did it, is showing William Tweed as mayor of New York City, at this time, when the actual mayor was a man named Thurlow Weed, I believe.

Enjoy the film.