Gangs of New York

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. (04/21/2003)

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. (01/22/2012)

The very opening action scene is extremely impressive, and the rest of the film impresses with spectacular sets, gorgeous costumes, excellent music, and of course the acting of the master Daniel Day-Lewis. In the end, this is a first-class historical spectacle that, under a less experienced director, would have ended up with the much-touted boredom and tedium due to its dense running time (which isn't actually bothersome). Moreover, both DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz can act well with good direction, which was confirmed here. And one more thing – Scorsese, with his perfect direction, manages to create a great "dirty" atmosphere in places, which adds to the already powerful overall experience. I haven't seen everything from Scorsese yet, but I dare to say that I will still rank "Gangs" very high after watching his other films. (09/25/2010)

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. (01/15/2007)

I didn't remember the film much, just the basic outline, so I was quite glad to revisit it. And once again, I had before me the evidence of the mastery of several individuals. Martin Scorsese's excellent direction, where every scene (action-packed, dramatic, romantic, comedic, and grand) is brilliantly conceived. Unique performances by Daniel and Leonardo, who are masters and perfectly embody their roles. And then it's only Cameron who spoils it for me; she didn't fit in at all, and the somewhat sentimental ending, but it certainly doesn't reach Spielberg's "qualities." (12/12/2015)