Reviews (497)

Martin Scorsese's epic spectacle has its flaws
Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York, based on Herbert Asbury's 1928 history catalog, is a rendition of New York's political and racial madness that lasted from the mid-19th century to the Civil War. His film is both a brutal epic and a breathtaking spectacle. The accomplishments displayed in the film's authentic design (the production was designed by Dante Ferretti), masterful art direction and set decoration, costume design (by Sandy Powell), and cinematography (by Michael Ballhaus) are quite meritorious and mesmerizing (in fact, the elaborate sets were constructed at Cinecitta in Rome). Furthermore, the performances delivered by the stellar cast are powerful and colorful. However, Gangs of New York has its flaws.

The movie's opening scene takes place in a nightmarish catacomb set beneath tenements. In the catacomb reside the violent "Dead Rabbits," a gang of Irish compatriots led by the fervent Irish-American Priest Vallon (played by Liam Neeson). The gang emerges from the catacombs onto snow-covered Five Points on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Here they face off with the "Nativists," a group of American-born rivals of the "Dead Rabbits," in a historical bloody gang battle of knives, swords, bayonets, cleavers, cudgels, axes, and shillelaghs.

During the vicious fight, the leader of the "Nativists," William "The Butcher" Cutting (played by Daniel Day-Lewis and known in Asbury's book as Bill Poole), slays Priest Vallon in the view of Vallon's young son, Amsterdam Vallon. Amsterdam escapes into an orphanage, portentously named Hellgate House of Reform. 16 years later, in 1863, Amsterdam (now played by Leonardo DiCaprio) leaves the orphanage in his 20s, returns to Five Points, and is intent on avenging his father by slaying the still-ruling Bill the Butcher. Amsterdam does not reveal his true identity to Bill and becomes a part of Bill's team. However, Bill begins to treat Amsterdam as a father would treat a son, and Amsterdam doesn't quite know what to think of Bill when the antagonist of Amsterdam, Bill the Butcher, gives accolades to Priest Vallon as being an admirable opponent.

Jay Cocks (who introduced Martin Scorsese to Robert De Niro and was also un-credited for his rewriting of the Titanic screenplay) wrote the story of Gangs of New York and co-wrote the screenplay with Steven Zaillian (whose great works as a writer include Schindler's List, Searching for Bobby Fischer, and Awakenings) and Kenneth Lonergan (whose equally commendable writing credits include You Can Count on Me and Analyze This). Because the talent of the screenwriters of this film is so very exceptional, it is no surprise that Gangs of New York is, for the most part, quite well-written. The dialogue of the characters is written both eloquently and realistically.

The ultimately auspicious aspect to Gangs of New York is the brilliant characters and their colorful and eccentric personalities. Cameron Diaz plays a likable, wily pickpocket named Jenny Everdeane, who is in love with both Amsterdam and Bill the Butcher. Brendan Gleeson plays the role of Monk, who is a fighter turned barber turned sheriff and who galvanizes the film with his authoritarian personality. John C. Reilly is in the role of the tyrannical police officer Happy Jack. Jim Broadbent delivers an appropriately subdued portrayal of the historical William "Boss" Tweed, the ruler of the notorious Tammany Hall and the seller and buyer of votes.

Daniel Day-Lewis eclipses everyone in his intense, ferocious, and frankly astonishing portrait of the bloodthirsty, albeit intelligent, Bill the Butcher. Day-Lewis provides the character with mannerisms that are elaborate, threatening, eccentric, and at times laced with humor. Bill the Butcher could have been a (slightly) hackneyed villain, but the talents of Day-Lewis make his character so wonderfully complex and over-the-top that Bill the Butcher is sure to become one of the great characters of modern cinema.

Despite the many strong aspects of Gangs of New York, the film has its imperfections. The opening battle scene plays more like a music video than the grandiose spectacle it was meant to be. In addition, along with the movie's sheer over-length, its major weakness is its meandering story (particularly towards the end of the movie).

It is not DiCaprio's performance that is flawed, it is his character. The protagonist Amsterdam Vallon lacks the ferocity and emotion that the characters which surround him possess, therefore, making his character more reserved and restrained in temperament and not a character that possesses more wild characteristics.

Martin Scorsese is ultimately one of the greatest story-tellers of cinema. His ambition is displayed via all of his films, and Gangs of New York is no exception. Gangs of New York is not a film by Scorsese that can be called "great," but it is nonetheless an accomplishment and a spectacle made on a grand scale and deserving of accolades.

A Spectacular Film!
Martin Scorsese has directed a moving and impressive film. He has captured the "feel" and "look" of New York City in the 1840s and 1860s, with incredible sets, a terrific script, and wonderful performances (particularly by Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher). The focus of the story is on the relationship between Bill (the nativist leader with a "patriotic" glass eye that he taps with a knife, and a butcher of animals and men) and Amsterdam (the young Irish-American, played by Leonardo DiCaprio). Bill kills the youngster's father, a priest (played all too briefly by Liam Neeson), then later makes Amsterdam his right-hand man (giving him pointers on maiming and killing), and finally becomes his enemy. Day-Lewis is magnificent in this role, which he plays with gusto, humor, and a wonderful accent. DiCaprio is less dynamic, but nevertheless effective as the son bent on revenge.

In the background, for most of the film, is the Civil War and its effects on the people of the city, especially the young Irish immigrants who must serve in the Union army.

I was forewarned about the violence in Gangs of New York. I am pleased to report that it was not excessively graphic. These were, after all, violent times, and draft riots and gang wars could not be shown as tea parties.

This was one of the best films that I saw in 2002, along with The Pianist, Frida, Adaptation, and Insomnia. Go and see it!

Watchable nonsense
Martin Scorcese's epic tale of gang warfare in New York at the time of the Civil War is an overblown, exaggerated account that is very watchable but ultimately fails as a cohesive story. I don't doubt that much of what happens in this film is inspired by fact, but I don't think that the actual participants looked quite as much like the cast of "The Road Warrior" as do the characters in this film. Take, for example, the main villain, William Cutting AKA Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis). One of his eyes is a steel ball with an American eagle on it; he cut out the original to present as a gift to the man who gave him a magnificent beating. There's also a woman who has filed her teeth into fangs. And a guy whose club is notched to commemorate his victims. Star Leonardo DiCaprio's father (Liam Neeson) wore a priest's collar even as he marched into battle.

I have come to expect gritty realism from Scorcese, but in this film he goes way over the top. The enormous (and surprisingly well-lit) catacombs and cavernous interiors with ratty characters hanging from bamboo scaffolding seem like left-over shots from "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome". It often seems like a film made by a much less skillful director who is willing to sacrifice the reality of his scenario for a cool effect, a bit of dramatic posing, or some easy violence.

TECHNICALLY PERFECT, HOWEVER, THE PLOT HAS HIGHS AND LOWS.
"Gangs Of New York" was a film with huge expectations when the movie hit the screen in december of 2002. The fans of the great director Martin Scorsese were eager to see his latest film in years. Well, finally "Gangs Of New York" was in theaters and the movie got a lot of mixed reviews, and I think it's obvious why that happened. You make a movie with a long running time (almost 3 hours), with a plot based in a controversial book, you throw graphic violence and racism, and obviously you will offend a lot of people.

Those are the controversial elements in "Gangs Of New York", however the movie has a lot of things to talk about. This film has depth in almost every single technical aspect: the sets are beautiful and above all, they are very real. The costumes and makeup are very specific and believable. The music score was made by the always efficient Howard Shore. Most of the performances are excellent, specially Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "The Butcher", he created one of the scariest villains in recent years, also he got a lot of acting awards for this role. Liam Neeson is outstanding in a brief, but essential role, he plays Priest Vallon. John C. Reilly as Happy Jack and Jim Broadbent as William "Boss" Tweed are also highlights in the cast.

Of course, there was a lot of controversy with the selection of Leonardo DiCaprio in the leading role, some might find him too weak and some might find him outstanding, I think that he did a good job in this movie, but this is not one of his best performances. The acting talent of Cameron Diaz had little use in this movie. The direction of Martin Scorsese was very good, because he had a lot of elements and he made a complex movie, not a lot of directors can make a convincing work with such a complicated material.

Now, the plot does have highs and lows. The opening scene is one of the most impressive battles in recent years, overall all the battles in the film are excellent. But I think that the movie could have been edited more efficiently, there are a lot of scenes that doesn't add continuity to the plot. The movie lengths almost 3 hours, I think that 130 minutes could have been more effective, but at the end of the day there are more good things in "Gangs Of New York" than flaws.

The DVD features are very interesting (if you liked the movie, of course), the audio commentary by Martin Scorsese is the highlight of the DVD features. The documentaries are very detailed and informative, they offer a lot of different perspectives. The Five Points study guide and the multi-angle sets are just amazing, almost make you feel like you are in there, so if you liked "Gangs Of New York" you are going to love the bonus disc.

"Gangs Of New York" may offend a lot of people because the movie tells a story about violence and obviously says that USA history is plagued with violence and racism since the beginning, but the movie also says that a lot of brave people fought to create the USA. So yes, the movie may be controversial but "Gangs Of New York" has too many good things, so rent it first, if you like the movie, this DVD is a must-own. Specially recommendable to fans of Martin Scorsese.

Overlong, overblown and over here!
Gangs of New York would have made a great 90 minute movie, but runs almost an hour and a half longer. An impressive fight scene near the start and a satisfactory one at the end cannot really compensate for the tedious dialogue and unconvincing meandering subplots.

Daniel Day-Lewis certainly steals what there is of the show with a compelling (if somewhat campy - check out that boo-hiss moustache!) depiction of Bill Cutter - the brutal bigoted leader of the "Native American" gang.

Leonardo Di Caprio though, horribly miscast as the orphaned "Amsterdam", leader of the "Dead Rabbits" generates about as much menace as Bambi, as he seeks revenge for the killing in a gang fight of his "da".

The love interest, provided by Cameron Diaz, as a rather stereotypical tart-with-a-heart (groan), simply doesn't convince or engage the viewer, who will probably be incongruously rooting for Day-Lewis by the end.

Despite the aforementioned fights, and a couple of other semi-memorable scenes (DDL's knife-throwing was quite entertaining!) I cannot recall another movie where so little of interest occurs in almost 3 hours.

Very disappointing, but could still be salvaged with some intelligent cutting.

At least the DVD makes it easy for you to skip the tedious scenes, but I doubt if GONY will be worth repeat viewings.

Shame. An opportunity lost. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Paranoid
This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen Jessica Alba in. Even her acting was poor. But then, I can't blame the girl. They didn't give her any good stuff to work with. She's a good actress, but sometimes, even that can't change the fact it was a crappy movie.

It's very predictible and boring too. I don't need much to be entertained, but really, this is really bad. The story itself wasn't all that bad. Actually, it could've turned out to be a good movie, but it didn't. That's a shame.

If you're an Alba fan, you could go and watch this movie, (she can't help it; she's always beautiful) but I don't recommend it. Buy Dark Angel season one and season 2 instead.

Disappointing "thriller"
The DVD box promised me a disturbing psychosexual thriller. Instead, the actual film (which was released direct-to-video in the US) consists of marginally creepy British characters boring Jessica Alba to tears in a secluded English mansion. Alba turns in an indifferent, awkward perfomance and I can't blame her. In fact I felt sorry for the poor girl. If I had trouble staying interested in a film like this for less than 2 hours, I can imagine how tedious it must have been to work on this wreck. It's a dull, pointless yawner.

Okay movie
The movie itself is okay. It's perhaps too predictable. Not particularly memorable, although Jessica Alba fans will probably like it.
Mastering of the DVD was very poor. It's fullscreen only, black levels, color, and contrast are terrible. It is closer to VHS quality than DVD quality.

Could've been better
I only got this movie because Jessica Alba was on it, just because sh is in it doesnt mean that i like it. The movie was horrible to be honest, the story is good, but the movie is boring. Maybe if they only changed the location and raise the suspense a little, then it would have been a great success.

One of The Worst Movies Ever
I'm sorry, this movie is one of the worst movie I've seen in a while. I am a big Jessica Alba fan, but that doesn't mean I'll like this movie ... I must say I'm not surprise Jessica did it, It was one of those things she started with. But hopefully Jessica won't be caught died doing another... movie like this. ... Read more

Description

This uniquely poignant and funny film focuses on the rekindling of a school relationship that has taken on a new twist. ... Read more

Reviews (26)

Different For ... Just About Everything
What a brave and unusual romantic comedy. Thank God the BBC is still open-minded enough for such projects, which are not only important, but ultimately wonderfully entertaining.

At the core of the boy-meets-girl, who used to be one of his mates at school, now transsexual, love story is Steven Mackintosh, who portrays Karl-now-Kim with such dignity and style that this film never feels sticky or cumbersome, as one might fear going into it.

Rupert Graves plays the bad-boy "Prentice" with such charm that one thoroughly understands why Kim allows her new-found, quiet life to be turned upside down. He shows Kim that finding the right gender doesn't necessarily make you a whole person...That comes from conviction and caring. It requires passion - something he's full of and is able to rekindle in his old schoolmate. And who knows...maybe she'll get him to change his socks daily!

Thoroughly charming!

Accurate and empowering
Wow. Steven Mackintosh does a *great* job of portraying a transsexual woman on her journey from fear and stealth to love and empowerment. I'm not sure exactly what it is that Kim is supposed to see in Prentiss (although I do understand about love for one's high school sweetheart being pretty blind), but still, they don't seem to have all that much in common. But that's the way that romantic comedies work, isn't it?

Nits to pick: 1) They had sex with no lube?! Ouch! (Transsexual women aren't usually able to self- lubricate.) 2) Provera is a progestin, not an estrogen, and wouldn't be Kim's primary hormone after surgery. (It's also nasty stuff better avoided in favor of micronized progesterone.) 3) The film editor picked absolutely the *worst* possible angle for Kim in the "afterglow" scene -- she looks like a guy.

Other than that, though, the film was remarkably accurate (right down to the dilating stent in Kim's medicine cabinet), and strongly empowering. It left me with a warm fuzzy feeling.

Good acting, decent script, just not my cup of tea
Different for Girls is an interesting film. It is well acted and well directed. However, I don't know that it is a film for everyone. It deals with the subject of post "change" of a transgendered person and how they try to fit in to society. It is quite touching and sensitive. Steven Mackintosh is quite good as the transgendered person and Rupert Graves is dynamite as he is in everything he does.

If there is a problem with this film, it's that it seems to be preaching a bit more than I think it should. I'd rather see it less a drama and more "a day in the life of" sort of film.

An *Awesome* - BUT - "True* Movie
I throughly enjoyed this movie from beginning to end! When I first saw it, I cried because I am a Transsexual (a label given by the Psychiatric profession to people "Born" with this medical condition). I watch this movie at least once a week because I "Totally" relate to what Kim went through during her Transition as well as her life afterward especially in dealing with her family, friends, co-workers, law enforcement, etc. The actor who portrayed Kim did an "AWESOME" performance in his portrayal of a woman -- in her walk, talk, mannerisms, reactions to every situation that she found herself in, and her quiet moments by herself.

The actor who played her friend "Printice" did a wonderful job in portraying her close friend from earlier in life even if he still exhibited immaturity in different situations. His reactions to Kim, what she looked like as a woman, her attitude towards him, his reactions to her, and the situations he found himself in were wonderful because they depicted the reactions that most people would find themselves in if they experienced the same things that Printess did. I HIGHLY recommend this film to everyone!

The Brits do it again.
If your sole point of transsexual movie refrences is "The Crying Game", you *have* to check this movie out.
Far from the contreversy of "The Big Secret", this movie paints a more realistic portrait of the actual, day-to-day life typical of a modern woman, (who happens to be transsexual), trying to make it through the relentless grind of society and relationships.
It is sweet in watching the re-kindled relationship between Kim and Prentice, old school mates, and the mind-wrapping required to adjust to the reality that is.

A sample quote from the movie that illustrates this:

Prentice: (Slightly stand-offish) "I'm not gay, you know.."
Kim:(with a resigned sigh) "Neither am I"

Although it doesnt tap into some of the darker aspects endured by Transpersons, it certainly tells a story not entirely like our own..with a twist. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

okay
Case of Evil is okay. It's not really Holmes, but it's got it's moments. I liked the cast. Holmes fans will probably be dissapointed. Non-fans of Holmes won't probably watch it. It all plays like a missed opportunity. Who knows who this was made for, but it could have been worse.

Not traditional Sherlock-but still a treat
Thought this story presents a younger Sherlock Holmes-who's character and appearance are quite different from the works of Conan Doyle (or the drawings of Arthur Paget)it is still a very good story which maintains the viewers interest throughout.
The Holmes in this story is rather sexually amoral--but the fate of the woman he loves at the hands of Moriarty-provides a plausible explanation for Holmes' later apparent disinterest in the fairer sex. In this story we are also given a reason for Holmes' original addiction to Opium.
James D'Arcy is far from my favorite Holmes-but his performance is adequate as long as one doesn't expect Jeremy Brett. The actor who portrays Watson is also adequate-though not outstanding. But, Vincent D'Onofrio is perfect as the evil Moriarty--far surpassing his performances on "Law & Order"--though a little "over the top"--his Moriarty is perfect-at least in my opinion.
Though some may dislike the revisionism--this is a very good story and well worth watching and owning!

swinging shagging sherlock
I'm amused by the reviewer's who claim this is what Doyle intended. Oh yeah, Doyle wanted Holmes to be a swinging guy engaging in threesomes. That's exactly what Sir Arthur wanted. There's nothing sterile about this Holmes! Just kidding. This is diverting, but not true to Doyle's detective. More fun perhaps, but not right. The cast here is solid for what they are given, but Matt Frewer is still the "best" in the weird Holmes category.

Have these people ever read a Sherlock Holmes book?
I cant really give a full review of this movie as I turned it off about 15 minutes into it. I really tried to like this movie, but it is so off course and unfaithful to the spirit of Holmes. Dont waste your money or your time if you are a real Sherlock fan.

A well-done and accurate representation of Holmes and Watson
My wife grabbed this DVD off the rental rack, I am usually very cautious about period pieces that I have never heard of, especially those pertaining to well-known fictitious characters such as Holmes. Maybe I am gun-shy after the horrible 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen,' but there was nothing else to rent so we decided to give this one a go. Well, let me say I was pleasantly surprised! This is a great film with well-acted characters and a plot that moves along. Sure, it has its faults, the relationship between Holmes and Rebecca Dolye doesn't unfold to a level necessary later in the script (I won't ruin any of the plot); but the inclusion of Holmes' brother Mycroft to explain Holmes' disdain for Professor Moriarty as well as Mycroft's role in this movie are well done, as it the introduction of Watson into the film.

Far from perfect, this was a very entertaining movie that grabbed my attention from the start and kept it throughout. I can understand why some Holmes fans wouldn't like it, his character does take a beating in this movie but his fundamental strengths are still highlighted. It isn't a Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's beloved character, but a genuine fan of Doyle's works (in other words, those who have read his books and not just watched movies based on them) will appreciate this version, which delves deeper into the character and his fault's than the more sterile versions done by Rathbone/Bruce. Don't get me wrong, I love those movies, but this adaptation of Doyle's work probably is much closer to what he intended.

Bottom line, great movie and well worth renting/owning. Although rated 'R' it is a fairly tame movie with just a few scenes not suitable for younger viewers (e.g. autopsies). ... Read more

Reviews (4)

The MOONRAKER of the Sharpe movie series
It give me no pleasure to write this review. After years of thoroughly enjoying Cornwell's Richard Sharpe novels I finally caved in and picked up one of the films. SHARPE'S GOLD is one of my favorite of the novels so I figured I'd chosen well.
I was wrong.
This movie is to the novel as MOONRAKER was to Ian Flemming's work.
Sharpe is indeed in the movie, and I think the word "gold" is uttered once or twice, but that's where the similarity ends.

Highly disappointing.
The only reason I gave it two stars is Sean Bean - who really does fullfil my image of Richard Sharpe.

Read the book. Don't waste time or money on this movie.

"Sharpe's Gold"
I have literally just finished watching "Sharpe's Gold" on DVD, I don't have the words to describe my disappointment. It's story line was in such poor taste I had to immediately submit a review.

My recent purchase of the Sharpes's series 1-6 has been shadowed by this absolutely horrible interpretation of the excellent book "Sharpe's Gold" by Bernard Cornwell. "Sharpe's Gold" the film would have made a much better "Doctor Who" episode. I consided myself a collector of the Sharpe series and have read the entire collection. I find it hard to believe that Bernard Cornwell actually allowed them to completely trash his book for his film.

I will continue to collect the rest of this series, however my copy of "Sharpe's Gold" will be collected by the garbage men next Tuesday.

Start with this one and you'll end with it
Had the first of the Sharpe's episodes I viewed been this one, it would have been my last. Most of the series rises above the the genre of pulp escapist adventure-- this one sinks below it.

The screenplay is the culprit here, filled with laughably improbable plot devices and threadbare cliches. It seems a band of Spanish Freedom Fighters are actually a secret religious cult, practising human sacrifice based on Aztec rituals (mysterously imported into Spain hundreds of years before the 1813 setting). This band of merry men has captured some English deserters, and wants to exchange them for modern rifles. Sharpe is chosen for the mission, but upon discovering their true nature is so horrified, he slays them all and dynamites their mountain base.

If you're not bothered by his company routing a far larger number of well-armed and experienced men in a strongly fortified position (all without taking any casualties), then you certainly won't shrug at Lord Wellington's teenage niece coming along for the ride. This lovely, well-bred young lass needed only an intense glance from Sharpe, before she's ready to be plowed by him (Lt. Ayres' words, not mine) whenever and wherever, even next to a pile of freshly sacrificed corpses. Oh, she's also a crack shot ("I only hunted rabbits before Sir!") and assists in the military victories also. That is, before she is captured, given mind-altering drugs, and prepared for sacrifice by having her perky young breasts painted with Aztec symbols. Will Sharpe arrive in time to save her? Such drama!

If you consider your collection incomplete without the entire series, buy this episode. But take my advise-- leave the shrinkwrap intact.

Bit of a disappointment
I really like this series. I've seen several episodes and have also read some of the books. So far I've found this to be the weakest. First, the story is nothing like the book. It contains a completely contrived romance and an unconvincing story about retrieving deserters. Second, Aztecs in Spain in 1813? Where does this come from? Third, the relationship between Sharpe and the Provost Lt. Ayres is quite bizarre. Why does Ayres persist in baiting Sharpe? Does he enjoy being beaten?

Still, I give it three stars for the acting by Sean Bean and Daragh O'Malley (sp?) as well as the action sequences. Also, because it is a Sharpe story. ... Read more