Is Gangs of New York worth a blind buy? (1 Viewer)

[Jan H]

This is the most misunderstood film since, well, geez, The Last Temptation of Christ. The biggest Oscar oversight since, well, Ordinary People beat Raging Bull. Rent it, buy it, whatever. But people, see it twice and decide if it was worth it. I saw Gangs once in the theater and thought it was good. Saw it again on DVD and thought it should have won the Best Picture Oscar. I bought it and viewed it a 3rd time and feel that it ranks with Goodfellas and Raging Bull among Scorsese's best. This is one of those rare films that improves dramatically upon multiple viewings.

 

[Raymond_H]

I bought it blindly and no compliants from me.

I felt the movie was very solid, and being a Martin fan it definetly will get repeated viewing movie and commentary replays.

I didn't think it was great, as the shots, sets, acting were top notch, the story wasn't as compelling to warrant a masterpiece. But solid it was.

Raymond

 

[Shawn Collins]

Ok, ok. I rented it.

I have to say, it was good. Not great just good. Blind buy? Well I don't think I would be too disappointed, but I can't say I would watch it again so I'm glad I rented first.

However, I did like it so I can't say I understand why so many people were disappointed buy it. There were a few annoying things, such as the flashbacks to refresh our memory of certain characters and possibly to see what Leo was thinking. But overall it was a good movie. The only part where the story scattered a bit was at the end with the mob scene. I don't think it was necessary since there were only brief glimpses of the discontent and uprising leading up to it during the movie.

Thanks for everyone's opinion.

 

[Steve_E]

Just wactched this and thought the production values were excellent. The shot at the beginning where we see a deserted town and then we see The Rabbits come out the house is absolute class.
Excellent acting but why oh why oh why was this film edited like a trailer????? Wasnt this film meant to be going for oscars? In that case why was it edited like Resident Evil in places? Why speed up shots just to get the shot out the way?
Couldnt believe it when Leonardo Di Caprio returned back to his old town and whenever he saw someone from when he was a child, for some inexplicable reason we were treated to a flashback, a glimpse from the opening just to say

"Hey look! They were on his dads side 15 minutes ago but of course you cant remember that!"

and what was with all the continuity errors too? I never notice any of this stuff but there were loads of mess ups. Perhaps they filmed so much that they just lost track and simply overlooked them? One scene someone has their hand behind their back, the next its on their lap etc. that kind of thing.

Quite enjoyed the film though and would have deserved all the oscars it could have won, had it not been for the amateur editing and.... dance music for the opening battle?!?!?1

 

[Ben Rockwell]

I'm glad this thread got brought back up. I've been hoping to see Scorsese's preferred cut since the first time I saw this film. HEre's a link that speaks of his 3.5 hr vision

http://slate.msn.com/id/2075910/

Other articles I have seen say Scorsese had to edit it for the Weinsteins, and some believe Scorsese willingly did it. I think it was all PR garbage.

As for the music in the opening scene: I thought it was great. I felt it really opened up the movie in an unusual way. We've all seen battles on screen before, but this was just a blood opera. I think that really added to it.

As the film stands, I think it's more of a flawed masterpiece. THere are things that could be better, and I can't help but think those are lying on a cutting room floor somewhere never to see the light of day. As I mentioned, though, I would (as sure many other would) love to see Scorsese's chosen vision of this film.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

I wonder if this means that we might see a director's cut on DVD sometime in the future? I'm surprised by all the negative reactions you guys had toward the film..

 

[JonZ]

I like this film more every time I see it.

For me its got alot of repeat value and was definitely worth the purchase.

 

[Juan C]

and what was with all the continuity errors too? I never notice any of this stuff but there were loads of mess ups. Perhaps they filmed so much that they just lost track and simply overlooked them? One scene someone has their hand behind their back, the next its on their lap etc. that kind of thing.

I think it was either Marty or Thelma Schoonmaker who said that a good editor had more important things to worry about than just the length of cigarettes.

For example, on a diner scene in After Hours, the waitress serving coffee spills some of it. Couple shots later, the saucer is pristine. Did you notice? (My wife did BTW.)

However, I agree the editing on Gangs was really sloppier than usual for Scorsese's films. I remember a scene with Leo and Cameron on the docks that was especially jarring.

Regards,

Another Scorsese fan disappointed with Gangs of New York.

 

[Jeff Adams]

This film is a MASTERPIECE! It is one of my most favorite films of all time.And it is one of those rare films that I can watch over and over again and enjoy more each time. I have probably seen it 8 or 9 times.

I do agree that it could have been even better. It seems that it was a 3.5-4 hour movie condensed into a 2hr and 45 minute movie. Some things felt rushed and the second part of the movie goes way too fast. A Directors Cut of this would be simply amazing and I would not even hesitate for the double dip.

Even in it's current form, it is still a spectacular film. In fact that year the only two movies that stood out for me was this and Road to Perdition.