Gangs of New York

Fundamental themes of life in the unusual setting of the 1860s. Daniel Day-Lewis steals the show in every scene, but overall this is a showcase of exceptional acting performances, and the actors really have some material to work with. Even Marty flashes past the camera in the role of the head of a robbed family. Amazing sets. (2011-12-31)

The script is a questionable mess that probably wants to be something in the style of The Godfather or Once Upon a Time in America, but in the end it is just a patchwork of scenes. But those scenes are so impressively delivered and acted that it doesn't really matter that much. (2007-01-16)

The question is what you expect from a filmmaker of Scorsese's calibre: a disposable product or something that will last for ages and that you will love to come back to. I expected the latter, but got the former. The product comes in an attractive package, the production design is meticulously detailed, there are dozens of extras in front of the camera in most shots, and the 100 million budget is palpable. Scorsese artfully inserts shots of period illustrations into the plot, which positively highlight the atmosphere of 19th century New York. The actors, Caprio and Diaz are excellent, but above them all looms the demonic Day Lewis with his artificial eye, you wouldn’t want to mess with him. The story: that’s were they dropped the ball. Gangs of New York is a portrait of an era that doesn’t go deep. The first two acts run like clockwork, but after a plot twist in the last act, the whole narrative goes haywire leading to a completely chaotic ending. The question is who is the culprit, the frequent reshoots or the bad script. I often like to return to Scorsese's films, such as The Last Temptation of Christ or Taxi Driver, as true art with profound content. Unfortunately, there’s no chance of that in this case. Overall, I'd say it's about a three-and-a-half-star film, but the actors give it their all and my respect for the Master is still high. (2003-04-21)

One great (Day-Lewis) and other good (DiCaprio, Reilly, Gleeson) performances are met with a lousy script, Scorsese's tired direction and outrageously long runtime. After about an hour, the fight of gangs against gangs turns into the viewer’s fight against boredom... And boredom will win out in the end. You could count the impressive scenes on one hand, and the film is quite strange in that it wants to feel like an intimate drama and a sweeping epic at times, but it doesn't quite manage either. I was also struck by the music. I don't mean the Howard Shore music, but the modern music that plays in the opening battle - I seem to have misunderstood something about its use. Not to mention the final slow tune by U2.__P.S. Liam Neeson was here for maybe only five minutes, but he still impressed me the most after Daniel Day-Lewis. (2012-01-22)

I certainly wouldn't call the script for this film outright cheesy or about nothing, as has been mentioned several times in the reviews here. It's true that those 160 minutes are a bit much, and I looked at the clock more and more in the last hour, but Scorsese has an uncanny gift for conquering almost any uninteresting material, and it paid off here. The story, despite all the flies, fleas and God knows what else, is extremely interesting, with a brilliantly depicted Civil War-torn New York and flawless sets. And there’s also the trump card called Daniel Day-Lewis. He literally imprinted his role with body and soul and gives a heroic performance that perfectly overshadows even the usually bland DiCaprio, as well as the protracted and wannabe spectacular ending. It’s certainly not as great as the ten Oscar nominations might make it seem, but Scorsese did his job well. (2012-06-17)