Gangs of New York

Scorsese is back! Personally, one of the peaks of the historical genre for me, with great sets and Daniel Day-Lewis. It's not fast, it's not aggressive, I wouldn't hesitate to call it a tribute to classics. It is slow storytelling with emphasis on characters, with minimal visual effects, accompanied by period music. An impressive fresco. (10/26/2003)

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)

I didn't remember the movie very well, just the basic outline, so I was happy to be reminded of it. And once again, I had proof of the mastery of several individuals in front of me. Martin Scorsese's excellent direction, where every scene (action, dramatic, romantic, comedic, and grandiose) is brilliantly conceived. Unique performances by Daniel and Leonardo, who are masters and perfectly in tune. Well, then it is only spoiled by Cameron, who didn't fit in at all, and a slightly pathetic ending that certainly doesn't reach Spielberg's "quality". (12/12/2015)

That organized crime played a significant role in the building of American society, not only during Prohibition, is widely known, and the intertwining of American political elites at the local level with the underworld could be the basis for epic TV series that would grab the attention of crowds while still staying true to reality. Scorsese could have undoubtedly directed a magnificent story without using exaggerated elements like in the case of Gangs of New York. Even the opening scene of the battle between two clans looks like something out of a dark medieval fantasy, full of characters who seem to have just stepped out of a sadomasochistic roleplay session. It's all shot for effect, with brutal violence and exaggeration that would be more fitting for a comic book. What works perfectly is the scene that truly breathes a romanticized, yet still somewhat accurate, history of America's most famous metropolis. The cast, led by Leonardo DiCaprio and Daniel Day-Lewis, is also solid. However, from a director of Martin Scorsese's caliber, I expected something more than a costume drama with a B-movie theme based on these non-existent underworld rituals and their glorification. The reality was much more down-to-earth. Overall impression: 60%. (01/03/2011)

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. (12/30/2011)