Gangs of New York

1
Watched this today as I tried to fight off whatever nasty flu bug I picked up back in the heartland last week...hmm, this movie is kind of a mess. There's always a seam showing, whether it be a badly cut scene or a glaring CGI or a lousy overdub or a punch thrown that comes no where near to hitting its target...I could go on. I can see where this was a concept bouncing around in Marty's head for 20 years without an actual story; in lieu of a strong narrative, he borrows standard elements of revenge plots and love stories and historical dramas and has a large staff of screenwriters (only 3 credited, but you just know there were more hands on it than that) manage to sloppily combine everything in a three hour screenplay that somehow does not include one memorable line of dialogue. I've never liked Marty doing period pieces, but on top of that he doesn't even attack the story from an Italian POV. Overall, a unique combination of way too much and way too little.

Re: Gangs of New York

2
Hrm, I must be the only person around these parts who's gone easy on this movie. Yes, it's too long, DiCaprio sucks donkey cock and the love story is awful. But I like the period detail (disagree with you on Scorsese and period pics) and there's Day Lewis hamming it up as a vintage Scorsese psychopath. I do agree about POV -- it would've been better had the DiCaprio character been dropped entirely, and just tell the story from the Butcher's perspective, a la Casino.

But I find the movie overall more than enjoyable. Albeit otherwise forgettable.

I do think it's ridiculous that Miramax split the movie into two halves for the DVD. A real pain in the ass.

:wah:
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

Re: Gangs of New York

4
O-dot wrote:Hrm, I must be the only person around these parts who's gone easy on this movie. Yes, it's too long, DiCaprio sucks donkey cock and the love story is awful. But I like the period detail (disagree with you on Scorsese and period pics) and there's Day Lewis hamming it up as a vintage Scorsese psychopath. I do agree about POV -- it would've been better had the DiCaprio character been dropped entirely, and just tell the story from the Butcher's perspective, a la Casino.

But I find the movie overall more than enjoyable. Albeit otherwise forgettable.

I do think it's ridiculous that Miramax split the movie into two halves for the DVD. A real pain in the ass.

:wah:
I think you've struck upon an interesting idea, having everything told from Lewis' point, or at least someone who is more of a flawed antihero--hell, you've figured out Scorsese's M.O. for success in all his good movies, and perhaps the biggest problem with this and some of his other less successful films. He doesn't fare all that well having a self-righteous, essentially 'good' protagonist; he needs to follow a fuckup with his camera or he's out of his element. Brings to mind an interview with him about "Cape Fear," when he said he had to do some major re-writing of Nolte's character in order to sink his teeth into the material, needed to make him much more flawed and complicit in the problem than the original lilly-white hero. Not to say "Cape Fear" is his best work or anything, but this does bring the sentiments he expressed there to mind.

And while he's a fine technican with 'period detail' and all that, I think you'd have a tough time arguing that any of his period pieces are among his best work. Some of them are fine, but they're just not his cup 'o tea.

Re: Gangs of New York

5
I think you've struck upon an interesting idea, having everything told from Lewis' point, or at least someone who is more of a flawed antihero--hell, you've figured out Scorsese's M.O. for success in all his good movies, and perhaps the biggest problem with this and some of his other less successful films.
Holy shit, A-head compliments me on an idea! :mrgreen:

I largely agree with your point that Scorsese's best films were centered around flawed antiheroes.... though I wonder if the DiCaprio character might have worked had the part been better cast. Someone like Billy Crudup, or Jude Law, maybe. Just because the studio was insisting on a big-name star for the lead doesn't mean Marty couldn't cast someone who can simultaneously project both goodness and yet an underlying instability. DiCaprio just scowls through the whole movie and ultimately looks like a pampered, skinny wussy boy trying to act tough.
And while he's a fine technican with 'period detail' and all that, I think you'd have a tough time arguing that any of his period pieces are among his best work. Some of them are fine, but they're just not his cup 'o tea.
Hrm, let's test the theory, excluding movies that are technically period pieces (his gangster stuff) yet still sorta contemporary:

New York, New York: Didn't see it, though conventional wisdom seems to be that it's a mediocre pic.
Last Temptation of Christ: A bit unwieldly and overambitious, perhaps, but still some powerful stuff.
The Age of Innocence: Hrm... I haven't seen this since a year or so after it came out. I remember enjoying it.

OK. You may have a point. But Raging Bull, GoodFellas and Casino are technically period dramas, set more or less in the 1940s-80s, and if you include them your theory falls apart.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

6
I was going to add the qualifier that I don't count films like "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas" as period pieces, but I figured that went without saying :mrgreen: ; I'm definitely talking about the other ones you mentioned. Not a fan of any of 'em, myself.

Leo didn't really bug me that much, but yeah, someone who naturally has a little more of an edge might have helped the proceedings.

7
Alexhead wrote:Leo didn't really bug me that much, but yeah, someone who naturally has a little more of an edge might have helped the proceedings.
I listened to a bit of Scorsese's DVD commentary last night... He says he had a hard time early on in the preproduction because he couldn't get a handle on the DiCaprio character ("I usually tend to go toward more villanous protagonists" he said, or words to that effect). And that it wasn't until the role was cast that, he says, the Amsterdam character became more of a flesh-and-blood person in his eyes...

All of which seems to suggest again a structural flaw from the beginning by not having the picture told from the Butcher's perspective.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

Re: Gangs of New York

8
i finally watched this over the weekend. it was a gap in my Marty filmography. somehow it slipped by me when it was released, and it hasn't been on streaming. it hit HBO, so finally got to check it out.

i'm with a-head on this one. really, both of you. DDL is a powerhouse in this, a massive presence. would have been a better film if it just focused on him. other than him, the entire film is just plain silly. i mean, it's a ridiculous mess. way too much and way too little, as a-head said. all of the sets feel like they were just built yesterday - there is no "lived in" quality that's been done so well in so many other pieces. even everyone's clothes were pristine in this environment that's supposed to be varying degrees of shithole. took me right out of every goddamn scene. every character is entirely 2-dimensional. overly long and progressively more ridiculous as it went on. i really don't understand the love this film gets. it really is a mess. yes, DDL is fantastic - top two characters of his career for me - but outside of that, this is a wreck. i'm perfectly happy to never see it again.

Re: Gangs of New York

9
I can live with the set, lends it a grand theatrical quality, but yes the film as it stands doesn't really work. Some of the music choices really don't help either. It's the one Scorsese I'd be interested to see a longer director's cut.

Re: Gangs of New York

10
I probably could have given a lot of the issues in this film more of a pass if it wasn't for Cameron Diaz. She's so god awful and badly miscast that she pretty much ruins the entire film. DDL being there just makes it even worse. They needed a really strong person cast to keep from being overshadowed by him, and she was definitely not that person.
Just cut them up like regular chickens