Gangs of New York [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

Rywill

12-20-2002, 07:07 PM

Saw this today. Whoo dogger, is it bad. I'm sorry, but Martin Scorcese is overrated as a movie director. I can't remember a good movie he made in the last 20 years (which is not to say there isn't one, but it sure doesn't come to mind). Anyway, "Gangs" is overwrought, predictable, and heavy-handed. It has some really good acting (Daniel Day-Lewis is strikingly similar to Robert DeNiro in his "Deer Hunter" and "Taxi Driver" days) and there are a few scenes that are pretty gripping, but overall the thing is just way too long, way too pretentious, and moves way, way, way too slowly. You thought the Ents were slow? Wait 'til you see Leonardo DiCaprio plotting his revenge.

Or better yet, don't--avoid the movie altogether. Thumbs way down. The weird thing is, it's getting really good reviews. I have no idea why.

voltaic

12-20-2002, 08:08 PM

I'm sorry, but Martin Scorcese is overrated as a movie director. I can't remember a good movie he made in the last 20 years (which is not to say there isn't one, but it sure doesn't come to mind).

Goodfellas, 1990
Casino, 1998.

I kill you!!

Gundaliro

12-21-2002, 05:05 AM

No plans to see it in the theatre, but I sort of like the entertainment value of dudes fighting in top hats, and rolling up their sleeves -- is that historically accurate? TOP HATS.

Mark Asher

12-21-2002, 05:21 AM

No plans to see it in the theatre, but I sort of like the entertainment value of dudes fighting in top hats, and rolling up their sleeves -- is that historically accurate? TOP HATS.

Heh -- no idea, but there was a time when men always wore hats. I wouldn't be surprised if the tophats are accurate.

Gundaliro

12-21-2002, 05:33 AM

Heh -- no idea, but there was a time when men always wore hats. I wouldn't be surprised if the tophats are accurate.
Yeah, I don't doubt it -- I seem to recall seeing old kinescopes of top-hat boxing, but there's just something so absurd about top hats that I can't figure how they were ever considered "the norm". I guess the same applies to mullets, though.

Matthew Gallant

12-21-2002, 06:02 AM

Conan O'Brien wasn't wearing a top hat in that SNL skit.

Rywill

12-21-2002, 06:44 AM

Goodfellas--excellent call. Casino wasn't that good, I didn't think. But Goodfellas was.

Anyway, they actually DO fight in top hats (and the most unbelieveable plaid pants you've ever seen) in the movie. I don't know whether it's historically accurate or not, but I assume it is. Scorcese apparently did tons and tons of research before making this film, and I definitely give him props for building a pretty amazing set. Supposedly it's totally authentic; whether it is or not (I have no idea) it certainly LOOKS believeable. Unfortunately, that doesn't make up for the fact that the movie is a bloated leviathan of boringness.

Anonymous

12-21-2002, 06:57 AM

Scorcese apparently did tons and tons of research before making this film, and I definitely give him props for building a pretty amazing set. Supposedly it's totally authentic; whether it is or not (I have no idea) it certainly LOOKS believeable. Unfortunately, that doesn't make up for the fact that the movie is a bloated leviathan of boringness.

Sounds like LotR.

Rywill

12-21-2002, 07:23 AM

*complacently watches troll amble by*

Derek Smart [3000AD]

12-21-2002, 07:43 AM

*complacently watches troll amble by*

/me sitting next to you and watching the spectacle too :roll:

AIM

12-21-2002, 02:32 PM

Hmm...

The critics are praising the hell out of the is film. Every review that I've read gives this film nothing less then 4 stars.

Anonymous

12-21-2002, 03:31 PM

Rywill wrote:
*complacently watches troll amble by*

/me sitting next to you and watching the spectacle too

And I thought you LotR fanboys liked trolls...

ba dump bump!

S

Rywill

12-21-2002, 06:28 PM

Hmm...

The critics are praising the hell out of the is film. Every review that I've read gives this film nothing less then 4 stars.

Yeah, it was running like 70% on Rotten Tomatoes when I checked prior to going to see it. Like I said above, maybe I'm just nuts. But I really didn't like it. I think a lot of reviewers give lots of extra points because it's Martin Scorcese. It's also getting points because it's an "American epic," a movie genre that I didn't know existed before this movie came out but the revival of which is causing reviewer pants-peeing on a scale unseen since Kubrick announced he was going to do "Eyes Wide Shut."

Guestacy

12-22-2002, 08:20 AM

Or better yet, don't--avoid the movie altogether. Thumbs way down. The weird thing is, it's getting really good reviews. I have no idea why.
I didn't think it's quite that bad, but it's getting good reviews because, as was noted, it's a story no one's told before that I'm aware of (I hope it's historically accurate, because if it is, I had no idea that level of gang warfare existed in American cities in that time period). It's also getting good reviews because Scorcese is a masterful filmmaker, though I think some of his shots in this one are heavy-handed. But there's one amazing continuous tracking shot of the Irish coming off the boat, signing up for the Civil War, putting on uniforms, getting a weapon, and getting back on a boat which is placing unmarked coffins on the dock. It's incredible.

The movie's fundamental problem is a horribly miscast Leonardo DiCaprio. I think he's a good actor, but to quote Almost Famous, "Your looks are becoming a problem." He's way too pretty. Greasy hair or not, he doesn't look anything like a tough Irish kid who kicks ass. He carries no weight with the role. In his scenes with Daniel Day-Lewis, he comes across as a petulant twerp. I think he'll be perfect in Catch Me If You Can, but this one, ugh. You just laugh every time he tries to look tough. Cameron Diaz was decent, but she's also too pretty for this role.

Looking at the trailer, I thought Day-Lewis was going to be awful, as I couldn't figure out what the fuck his accent was supposed to be and he looked like all affectation and overblown scene schewing. But in the movie, it worked, and he was as fantastic as ever.

Jim Broadbent was superb as Tweed, and Brendan Gleeson great as Monk. Both were considerably more believable than Diaz and DiCaprio.

The movie looks fantastic, and moves relatively quickly for a nearly three-hour movie. The draggy parts mostly involve DiCaprio and the Hollywood love story with Diaz. I wish they'd spent more time looking at the scams and the street hustling going on. It's worth seeing, if only for the amazing cinematography and set designs and for its unique look at an interesting period of history. But its main story is dull.

Kevin Grey

12-22-2002, 04:28 PM

though I think some of his shots in this one are heavy-handed. But there's one amazing continuous tracking shot of the Irish coming off the boat, signing up for the Civil War, putting on uniforms, getting a weapon, and getting back on a boat which is placing unmarked coffins on the dock. It's incredible.

Yeah that was easily the best shot in the movie and the only one that seemed worthy of Scorcese. I was shocked by how boring the visuals were. For the most part the camera was locked down which is something I certainly don't expect from him. The movie felt really slow paced, which shocked me because Scorcese is usually a master at melding visuals and music in a way that can make a 2.5-3 film fly by (Casino and Goodfellas are excellent examples of this).

VegasRobb

12-23-2002, 06:05 AM

I thought Daniel Day-Lewis was excellent. I saw the Golden Globe nominations and Day-Lewis was nominated for Best Actor for Gangs of New York and DiCaprio Best Actor for Catch Me If You Can. I was curious if Day-Lewis had enough screen time to warrant a best actor nod over DiCaprio but once I saw the movie, it was a moot point because:

1 - Day-Lewis is in quite a bit of the movie
2 - He owns the screen anytime the two of them are in the same scene

As a previous poster noted, I was a bit worried about DiCaprio being a bit miscast in the role and at first I thought he looked feral enough for the part but to me he kept slipping in and out of the part and losing his accent.

I thought the first scene was very shocking and visceral. I was actually glad the movie didn't continue down that route.

I disliked the ending where a cannonball changes what was a more likely outcome to one that was ... a bit more predictable(?).

Decent movie, but it could have been better.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

12-23-2002, 08:55 AM

I thought the first scene was very shocking and visceral. I was actually glad the movie didn't continue down that route.
.

Brilliant. So how many minutes from the beginning am I supposed to be skipping this time around before going in?

What is with filmmakers and gratuitous violence? Why can't it be something like what Peter did in the LOTR movies?

This is begining to upset me more and more. A movie doesn't need visceral violence to be entertaining. So why do they do it?

Drunkagain

12-23-2002, 08:59 AM

Wow, you guys must have seen a different film than me. I thought it was fantastic! A others noted I found to be Day-Lewis was amazing, and thought Decaprio did a good job too. Truly a very enjoyable movie. I would count it among this years top 5 for me.

Two three hours epics in one week...it just dosen't get any better! :D

Rywill

12-23-2002, 09:30 AM

]What is with filmmakers and gratuitous violence? Why can't it be something like what Steve did in the LOTR movies?

Everything is spelled right (even "gratuitous"), so I assume you're not joking. You're holding up *LOTR* as an example of movies without gratuitous violence? I mean, the violence is technically not "gratuitious," because it advances the story, but that is also true of the violence in "Gangs of New York" (the violent intro shows why DeCaprio hates Day-Lewis, which sets him on his three-hour quest to make the most boring revenge picture ever). Usually when people decry "gratuitous" violence they mean that there's no reason to *show* the violence onscreen, or to show it so graphically. Assuming this is your complaint, LOTR is just as guilty of this as anyone else. Even just taking the first movie (which is significantly less violent than the second), there are beheadings, unhandings, etc., and dozens and dozens of people get killed (assuming you include the orcs). How many times do they show a close-up of an orc with Legolas' arrow in its eye or throat?

It's not like the movie is a splatter-fest, and I definitely think Jackson did a good job when he used more "subtle" violence (so to speak), such as in Boromir's death (where you never actually see an arrow enter his body).
But I would hardly hold this up as my big exemplar of a movie without gratuitous violence.

And really, Scorcese's movie has almost the same approach to violence. Much of it is shown, but there is also a fair amount that is only implied by editing, sound, and reaction shots.

Desslock

12-23-2002, 10:33 AM

] What is with filmmakers and gratuitous violence? Why can't it be something like what Steve did in the LOTR movies?

Scorsese has always depicted violence graphically. Casino is the most violent mainstream movie of all time, in my opinion. I don't think his depictions are gratuitous -- they are inherent in the stories he's interested in telling.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

12-23-2002, 10:51 AM

You're holding up *LOTR* as an example of movies without gratuitous violence?

You and I are talking about two different things. I do not considering the violence in LOTR or TTT in any way gratuitous.

I'm talking about GRAPHIC depictions of violence - not that use your imagination type of violence.

examples: Braveheart (and that other period war movie Mel made and which I left after the first 15 mins), Gladiator etc

Brian Koontz

12-23-2002, 05:55 PM

]I'm talking about GRAPHIC depictions of violence - not that use your imagination type of violence.

So you're saying an up close look at a beheading in TTT is a matter of "use your imagination"?

But since they are Orcs they don't count, right? Although there were a few shots of "good guys" getting hacked, as well.

To translate the poorly communicated words of Derek Smart...

Gratuitous violence in fantasy settings is ok because its understood as "not real" while gratuitous violence in realistic settings is more unsettling (to some people anyway, apparently including Derek Smart) because its seen as "real".

This understanding is the precise reason why Wily E. Coyote and Bugs Bunny are considered suitable for children... if they were filmed as REAL people crushing each other with anvils and blowing each other up with dynamite they would be termed "gratuitous violence"... although the lack of bits and pieces of Elmer Fudd and Wily remaining after the act assist in this as well, along with them being immortal (perpetually resurrected).

Drunkagain

12-23-2002, 07:25 PM

To translate the poorly communicated words of Derek Smart...

I don't know about that? It seemed pretty clear to me what he's saying, though I don't agree him.

Both movies are without a doubt violent, but it comes across very different in GONY than in TTT. Personally I think they both did a good job of depicting the violence in the context of their respective stories.

Brian Koontz

12-25-2002, 12:49 PM

Both movies are without a doubt violent, but it comes across very different in GONY than in TTT. Personally I think they both did a good job of depicting the violence in the context of their respective stories.

I haven't seen GONY, but knowing Scorsese he presents a pathology and rage in his pictures (ostensibly to justify the violence) which are not present in TTT. TTT is a "light-hearted" beheading type movie.

antlers

12-26-2002, 09:27 AM

I've heard people who should know mention that the level of gang violence in Gangs of New York is greatly exaggerated (aside from the draft riots, which were a different matter). Murders were still a big deal then, and even a large gang fight would result in a death or two, at most.

Jason McCullough

12-27-2002, 12:20 PM

Anonymous

12-27-2002, 08:58 PM

antlers, you should know better than to inject a note of common sense into these government-educated simpletons' history lesson. These are the same people who think games like Civ and M:TW have some relation to actual history. No longer do we look to men of genius like Tacitus or Edward Gibbon for our accounts of the past; now we look to, of all people, Martin Scorsese. Sheesh. :roll:

(Well, he SAID it was, like, really, really accurate and stuff...)

chet

01-01-2003, 08:54 AM

So much trolling.

Saw it last night, loved it. Why bother saying why? Some little ignorant troll will just come by and join the Koontz clan and talk of imaginary people who back their claims.

Yay!

chet

01-01-2003, 10:19 AM

Okay had to respond because I actually read some of the trolling, funniest post in a bit:

The movie's fundamental problem is a horribly miscast Leonardo DiCaprio. I think he's a good actor, but to quote Almost Famous, "Your looks are becoming a problem." He's way too pretty. Greasy hair or not, he doesn't look anything like a tough Irish kid who kicks ass. He carries no weight with the role. In his scenes with Daniel Day-Lewis, he comes across as a petulant twerp. I think he'll be perfect in Catch Me If You Can, but this one, ugh. You just laugh every time he tries to look tough. Cameron Diaz was decent, but she's also too pretty for this role.

Because beauty cannot exist in ugly places? Diaz was presumably taken under Lewis's wing because even at 12 she was a knockout -but according to you, she really can't be such a knockout because this was before plastic surgery, people could only be so pretty.

And for DiCaprio, that is laughable. This is not some movie of the week where after every battle his hair was back pretty and all the dirt washed from him. He was dirty and greasy, but not ugly. And once again, that can't be!!! These people were poor! They must be ugly.

So I guess he is miscast in the sense that some "modern" people have come to believe that beauty is manufactured and not a case of genetics and that only the rich can afford to be beautiful?

By the way, ugly rarely rises to power.

Chet

Bub, Andrew

01-01-2003, 11:30 AM

By the way, ugly rarely rises to power.

I just saw Richard III last night. The McKellan fascist version. Sort of a coincidence there.

Note: This post is made on a tangent and is not meant to be a response to any of Chet's points above.

Guestacy

01-01-2003, 11:39 AM

So I guess he is miscast in the sense that some "modern" people have come to believe that beauty is manufactured and not a case of genetics and that only the rich can afford to be beautiful?
Who said any of this nonsense?

Since you're exaggerating everything I said, and I didn't say any other things you implied, all of those characters would probably, at a minimum, have rotted teeth. When they had teeth.

As for Cameron Diaz, those killer high cheekbones don't quite scream "Irish." They do reflect her native American blood, though. Also, "pretty" women in those days, at least from pictures I've seen from the era, generally weren't built like she is. She's skinny, with no curves. Women in those days, at least the ones people dubbed beautiful, were usually voluptuous. But I'm not an expert in this like you apparently are, so maybe I'm wrong.

With DiCaprio, the amount of fighting that someone would have had to participate in would leave him scarred, with likely a deformed nose, missing teeth, etc.

The weakness of his performance goes beyond looks too. To use a term from film, he had no sand. He doesn't come across as tough or authoritative, which is due to his looks, his voice, and the way he carries himself. I didn't believe for one second he would be feared by anyone.

Daniel Day-Lewis, on the other hand, just commanded the screen; he was both more charismatic (as a leader), but also came across as a helluva lot tougher.

chet

01-01-2003, 12:14 PM

Guestacy

01-01-2003, 02:47 PM

Who said this? Umm... you? Go back read your opening paragraph. To quote a little - Cameron Diaz was decent, but she's also too pretty for this role. I am very sorry if I misunderstood that line to me that you thought her character in real life would never be as pretty as Cameron Diaz. Because... people weren't pretty back then? Not sure, care to explain?
Going from "Cameron Diaz is too pretty for a role" to "people weren't pretty back then" requires a fairly serious leap of logic, but in the future, I'll be sure to write complete essays that better clarify my points. I apologize profusely for offending any 19th century women, or the Irish, with my reckless comments.

But I still contend that, by our standards of beauty, people in the 19th century didn't look like Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio. The photos I've seen from the period had people that looked considerably different, and my perception, whether correct or not, affected the believability of the characters to me. Is that more clear?

Of course I could be wrong, and beautiful men and women in 1850 did look like today's models, with slim bodies, flat chests, and perfect teeth.

Did you notice that? He is a man playing a role, pretending to be someone else, while his real self (the character self) is unsure of himself. Did you miss that? Don't tell me you missed all of the internal debate and struggle in the character.
I guess I missed all of that, or maybe I didn't think DiCaprio was good enough to pull it off convincingly. Regardless of his internal conflict, his external self is what people around him would have to react to, and superficially speaking, I didn't buy Amsterdam as someone that commands that level of loyalty and power through force, which if I understand it, is how people come to lead gangs. (Of course I've never been in one, and only know what I know from watching "Boyz in the Hood" and "The Sopranos.")

And of course, if everything isn't played to the widest stereotype it must be wrong. Because everything but stereotypes are wrong. She had a cheek job.
What are you talking about? What stereotypes? Are you saying that people in the 19th century did look like Cameron Diaz? What's your source for that?

Brian Koontz

01-01-2003, 03:07 PM

I concur with Guestacy, but you have to understand that most actors only want to take a part so far. Its not like DiCaprio is EVER going to knock a few of his own teeth out for a role. Forget about it.

And Diaz's whole POINT is that she is hot. Its counter-intuitive (and according to marketing, a hell of a bad idea) to dirty her up too much for her role. Otherwise you don't get Diaz, you get an ugly woman who might as well be ugly WITHOUT the makeup.

Yes, it harms realism considerably. But hey, DiCaprio has other movies to go to (ones that encourage him to have all of his teeth) and Diaz doesn't want to spoil her hot reputation by grunging down.

And its highly unlikely for Casting to select more realistic actors for the roles (except in an indie or art film)... the public doesn't want to see realistic actors, they want to see STARS.

Chet is an idiot, and Guestacy is being idealistic. Marketing states that this film must be mis-cast, at least in an artistic sense.

chet

01-01-2003, 03:08 PM

Give me a break.

Here is your quote for the third time.

Cameron Diaz was decent, but she's also too pretty for this role.

Where in this quote does it say she does not fit the body type of a person from the 1800s? Is this something that should just be assumed you meant? You have gone on to try and add more meaning to your original quote, but it still makes no sense. When scorsese was making the last temptation, should he have only used Romans and Jews? after all, William Dafoe clearly does not look like anyone from that area or period.

Are you proposing all films now require a time machine to go back and gather actors that will make the piece authentic for you?

You then say DiCaprio and Diaz do not represent what was beautiful back then - so then does your first point make more or less sense? because aren't you now saying they are fine for the role, since they were not supermodel hot back then? I am so confused.

Okay, here is going to be a shocker. Because maybe you missed it. But DiCaprio plays the son - the heir - of their previous leader. Maybe you missed that because they didn't have DiCaprio play the child as well (he would have been too cute as a 6year old I guess). Do you think - when DiCaprio finally stands on his own and grabs power - he might have some sway with people who looked back to his father? Did you notice the little thing he hung up? What that represented? Did you notice when he first appears back after the boys home, some people recognize him? Others know the name the moment they hear it? There is an entire day dedicated to his father's death?

As for stereotypes, you claim that Diaz does not look like what you think of as representing Irish. Yes, I apologize for once again daring to read your words and thinking you meant what you wrote - not implying some grand underlying hidden idea to your words you will unveil later. So I will quote you again, As for Cameron Diaz, those killer high cheekbones don't quite scream "Irish." . In case you were mystified, the picture I posted is of an Irish woman, you might have heard of her. But again, I understand since she doesn't have red hair and freckles, there is no way you would dare think her to be Irish.

Chet

Brian Koontz

01-01-2003, 06:06 PM

Chet's Grand Thesis: Because Sinead O'Connor doesn't look particularly Irish Cameron Diaz doesn't have to either.

And conclusion to the thesis: Diaz is "new wave" Irish... a radical in looks far ahead of her time. An anachronism, but BY GOD an Irish one!

I wonder if Diaz's eyes gave a brilliant performance. Chet probably thinks they were clearly a smilin'.

Guestacy

01-01-2003, 08:16 PM

Give me a break.
No, give me a break. I didn't like DiCaprio's performance. Big whoop. Are you his agent or something?

When scorsese was making the last temptation, should he have only used Romans and Jews? after all, William Dafoe clearly does not look like anyone from that area or period.
Oh, I thought we were talking about Gangs of New York. Stupid me, I forgot to mention how Last Temptation of Christ fit into this. Should we work Spider-Man into this as well? How about Lord of the Rings?

Maybe Willem Dafoe was fine because he gave a great and convincing performance, despite any anachronisms?

And to me, Leo's performance in Gangs of New York was not able to overcome this, therefore those stood out more than they would have otherwise? Was that clear enough?

I thought Leo was great in Catch Me if You Can, completely 100% believable, for what it's worth. Do I need to go into great detail about what made him believable?

I am so confused.
Me too. I thought I just disliked a performance and gave a fairly simple reason why. Apparently, in your mind, I've insulted the entire population of Ireland, Martin Scorcese, and offended Leonardo DiCaprio's biggest fan, which seems to be you. I apologize for holding an opinion you apparently do not agree with.

There is an entire day dedicated to his father's death?
Okay, you win. I was wrong. DiCaprio is a god, delivering the most convincing portrayal ever of an Irish thug, with an impeccable accent that never wavered. He looked exactly like every other thug in 19th century New York, down to every greasy strand on his head and white tooth in his mouth. He should get an Academy Award, nay, a Pulitzer. It's a work of pure cinematic art.

But again, I understand since she doesn't have red hair and freckles, there is no way you would dare think her to be Irish.
One photo of Sinead O'Conner was effective in proving that I am wrong, you are right. Cameron Diaz, all Native American/German/Cuban of her, with her perfect skin and teeth and model figure, is the 100% accurate representation of 19th century Irish street woman, particularly since she had the red hair thing going. Sinead O'Connor also clearly represents that 19th century look as well. You're a genius. Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways. I bow to your superior intellect. You win. You're smart. I'm dumb.

chet

01-01-2003, 09:04 PM

Guestacy, I was picking because I have heard that before, and it has always struck me as a bizarre argument - the actor too pretty for the role. I guess one that is without much defense when it comes down to it.

My point with Diaz, unless you demand that every ethnic character has to fulfil the stereotypes for that group - variations such as hers hardly break the spirit of the movie. Its not like they cast connie chung to play an Irish woman. While most people (brian koontz absent) don't think that the irish radically changed their DNA in the 1960s - comparing a modern day irish woman with Diaz is not so bizarre - but a minor point in the whole discussion.

And for DiCaprio - my point is - he is a twerp. He isn't some tough Irish ruffian who is going to comeback and beatdown everyone, and he fails when he tries. I thought the movie set that up well, think of the scene following Day-Lewis's first assassination attempt. He wasn't considered a leader then by the people who eventually back him. It is only when he calls on the past does he become a leader, which I thought the ideas of heritage, father/son, community, honoring of the past etc were the central themes of the movie. So I didn't see how "being pretty" affected the role, he wasn't playing Rambo.

Chet

Guestacy

01-01-2003, 09:17 PM

Guestacy, I was picking because I have heard that before, and it has always struck me as a bizarre argument - the actor too pretty for the role. I guess one that is without much defense when it comes down to it.
These reverse holds true as well: Woody Allen, sexy leading man, able to romance Helen Hunt and other various 20-30-something actresses.

It's easy (and lazy) to fixate on looks, but it's ultimately just another way of saying you don't buy the performance, or that there's something wrong with the character as written or performed. Looks are irrelevant when everything else clicks.

Ben Sones

01-01-2003, 09:44 PM

Anyway, they actually DO fight in top hats (and the most unbelieveable plaid pants you've ever seen) in the movie. I don't know whether it's historically accurate or not, but I assume it is. Scorcese apparently did tons and tons of research before making this film, and I definitely give him props for building a pretty amazing set. Supposedly it's totally authentic; whether it is or not (I have no idea) it certainly LOOKS believeable. Unfortunately, that doesn't make up for the fact that the movie is a bloated leviathan of boringness.

They should put that on the DVD cover:

"...A bloated leviathan of boringness!" -Ry Williams

Right under:

"I like hooters." -Roger Ebert