Sorry to Scorsese for the wrong sp of his name above in my post. It is because there are so many of his films that I admire, that I shared my disappointment with this one here. I am not a great fan of any of his ‘gangster’ films, so that reflects on my attitude toward this one, too. In fact, I wish the whole gangster genre would just die out, which it should have, after the Godfather trilogy, and filmmakers could get on with telling stories about people again that were not gangsters. It’s like the whole Western genre that went on and on for far too long and just got kind of repetitive – no matter how it was done. I try to avoid the type of films about hitmen, gangmen, dealers, and low-lifes, because they really aren’t that interesting. James Cagney, Paul Muni, and Edward G. Robinson set the standard for this genre many years ago, and it hasn’t been surpassed. Modern day films of this sort just become more cliche. This movie proves the point, even though Scorsese tried to set it in the distant past, it is still part of that same family of films. Enough, already.
Well, i’m sorry to fans of the film, i’m with Bob. For me it didn’t just fall flat, i hated it, the overblown hatred and violence, it was a grotesque monster. Daniel Day Lewis was memorably larger than life, as in There will be Blood, and of course violence in real life is grotesque (there’s no airbrushing or sweeping under the carpet here). Scorsese has done well out of the dichotomy between violence and gangsterism on the one hand and a sensitive, even spiritual side trying to get out, for possible redemption, on the other. But i find, intentionally or not, his violence very often becomes glamourised, (it may be hideous sometimes but it seems to strike a popular chord, not revulsion) like he wants to have his cake and eat it. It may be i’m too much of a sensitive softie and of course our reactions to films are all conditioned by our own emotional and pyschological make-up. I liked The Age of Innocence, though i’d say Raging Bull is his masterpiece.
“gangs of new york” should have almost been like a b-film. with a very pure and streamlined plot. no melodrama. it should have evoked “the warriors”. then it probably would have been a great film with interesting historical value. i know that’s what i was expecting when i first heard about. i was excited to see the nuance about what gangs and life was like in new york at the turn of the century.
A decent film utterly ruined by one of the hammiest and most unncessary voiceovers in history — everything, especially the last five minutes of the film, would have been so much more powerful without dicaprio reiterating what Scorsese’s visuals are already brilliantly showing. “They put candles on the bodies of the dead.” Duh. I can see that, thank you. “We slowly forgot him.” I never would have guessed, with the CGI montage of the modern city springing up on top of the old. Truly filmmaking for the lowest common denominator of dummy, and as such, sadly and painfully unwatchable for me. A big fat lesson in what not to do.
And I also agree with Jason – many of the characters were underdeveloped.
The film has its downs — but there is something incredible inside of it as well. You’ve got to “sift through” the weaker bits.
One thing I guess we can say in defense of GONY is that it is better than the Departed, and of course that’s all because of Daniel Day Lewis. He could have probably made Showgirls work of they put him in that one. TAKE THAT JACK NICHOLSON!
croonie
O’Doyle rules, O’Doyle rules…screech. Car breaks through the side railing and over the edge of a cliff. Explosion.