*** Official "GANGS OF NEW YORK" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Mike Broadman]

In regards to some earlier posts, I don't know why people are assuming the casting is due to marketability rather than the simple and obvious factor: age.

 

[Andy Sheets]

I know these events happened like that and one cannot simply ignore or run from our history...but wow that was painful to see.

I was thinking about the movie after I saw it and I realized that one of the reasons it worked so well for me (aside from losing some momentum in the middle) was that Scorsese seems quite suited to tell a story like this because of his harsh sensibilities. He doesn't seem to have any need to arrange history in clear cut divisions of good and bad like many people do. He works with shades of gray and that fits the ambiguous nature of history.

 

[Henry Gale]

Wouldn’t have missed it for anything, and yes, Daniel Day Louis was terrific.
I do need to echo a couple of earlier comments:
(1)The flashbacks at the beginning were clumsy and unnecessary.
(2)The telegraph operator voiceovers were just a jarring anachronism. I seriously expected someone to start doing Walter Winchell.
Also, the World Trade Center was, how do I describe this….highlighted…in a different way than the rest of the skyline. It seemed to me that this recognition of the WTC tragedy in a movie that has nothing to do with that time or event is just pandering.

 

[Anthony_H]

While I enjoyed this film to a degree.. I cant help but feel would have enjoyed it to a greater extent if it was leaner..tighter...SHORTER. The pendulum re feature length seems to have swung the opposite direction from the early to late 80s when a film couldnt be longer than 90 mins. Now we seem to have the same problem from the opposite perspective. As pointed out several times in this thread the film seriously meanders after the "Chinese" reveal. CUT...CUT...CUT

 

[MikeAlletto]

I saw this with my family the day after Christmas, and my dad was the only one that liked it. This movie has some serious problems. I thought DiCaprio couldn't act before this movie and I see that nothing has changed. A lot of the dialog is pretty bad as is the pacing. The gang war scenes seemed forced. Something was just not right about it. The ending montage showing New York changing over the years was really good but the final shot showing the towers was lame. Talk about forcing emotion. This is a post 9/11 released movie, the towers should not be there. If this came out pre or right around the time then leave them in, but since its after, the movie should reflect the current times.

This has got to be one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time and I still can't figure out why the its received the golden globe nominations. The only thing I can think of is because it takes place in New York and they don't want to offend anyone. Yuck.

 

[John Geelan]

I couldn't agree more. While the percussion and tin flute cues that built up to the battle scenes were great, that rock score during the opening battle was awful

BTW, that opening theme was from Peter Gabriel's new cd Up called "Signal To Noise".
I was sitting there saying to myself that I know I've heard this theme before (I saw PG in Concert last month and own the new cd).
I think the movie is a flawed masterpiece, the biggest flaw being that it always look's like a staged film (as it was filmed on a large stage in Rome Italy).
I never believed they were actually in Old NY.
But some of the acting is great and the story of the Birth Of America's Modern Cities (in this case NY) needs to be told.
It's funny how our society freaks out when a cop these days gets into trouble but back then (not to long ago) there were no cops of fireman. They were political hacks that didn't give a rat's ass about the public.
Weren't you shocked to see the Fireman bursting into homes to loot and kill.
NYC had come a long way from those days.
I liked the ending. It's just magnificent how NY rose from a sea shanty town to the great Metropolis it became. The Twin Towers represented that rise of Power.
I would give this movie :star: :star: :star:

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Agreed on the ending. There was a point there. It worked, and removing the towers in a final shot would have been unnecessary.

The more I tumble this film about in my mind, the more layers I uncover. It's still a flawed masterpiece, but nonetheless, it's something I look forward to revisiting.

For all of my favorite moments in film this year...GoNY with DDL on-screen was the most riveting.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Paul Case]

For all of my favorite moments in film this year...GoNY with DDL on-screen was the most riveting.

I couldn't agree more. I hope he takes home the oscar this year.

 

[MikeRS]

Saw it again tonight, and nothing diminished. If anything, I appreciated the 3rd act even more. Shivers when Amsterdam raised his hand towards his men, as the approaching "turf war" (which never happened) got intercut with history. And that last scene between Bill and Amsterdam is one of the most powerful "father-son moments", I've ever experienced. There was a real bond between them.
Emotionally cleansing and profoundly symbolic, that climax solidified my love for this film.

 

[Blu]

I'm just pondering at why Gangs hasn't done better at the box office. I haven't seen the movie yet but have it on my list of movies this week. With a movie with this star power and scope it seems to just eek by money wise.
I mean a 100 million dollar movie like Pluto Nash bombed big time! But this one really has me scratching my head at why it hasn't done better.

 

[Edwin-S]

Well, if it hasn't been doing well at the box office it has helped dispel one myth......that the success of "Titanic" was entirely due to teenage girls flocking to the theatre repeatedly to watch Leonardo DiCaprio. He is starring in "Gangs of New York" and his prescence hasn't seemed to help the film. Maybe that is the problem with the film.....he is in it. I thought the film might have been worth taking a look at, but as soon as I saw his mug in the trailer, it was off my list. His pretty boy looks ruin every film that he appears in.

 

[Bill J]

I guess Miramax released it in December because they were hoping for Academy Awards consideration. I think the main two reasons for its box office "failure" are the time it was released and the number of theaters. Miramax was worried that Gangs of New York couldn't compete with Catch Me If You Can, but instead they should have feared the behemoth that is The Lord of the Rings. In my opinion they would have been better off releasing it sometime in September when there weren't too many popular and big-moneymaking films. I still don't understand why they only released it in only 1500 theaters during the opening weekend.

I guess another reason could be that the film was not as critically acclaimed as some expected. Rotten Tomatoes currently has it at about 77%, which is still pretty respectable, but I expected it to be in the high 90s.

Advertising could be another reason. Out of all the films I saw in 2002, I don't remember seeing a single trailer for Gangs of New York.

 

[Adam_S]

I thought the film might have been worth taking a look at, but as soon as I saw his mug in the trailer, it was off my list. His pretty boy looks ruin every film that he appears in.

this is such a ridiculous assumption its hardly worth refuting. I for one think that Dicaprio has proved his excellent acting chops more often then not.

Gangs of New York is not bad, however there are several factors limiting it's box office. For one it's a very difficult movie to accept, the violence is not aesthetized into heroic poses, but brutal, real and shocking. Watch the opening sequence, our expectations set us up to admire fighting ability--and Scorsese plays off of this by shooting Day Lewis in a sort of heightened lyricism, reminiscent of the Matrix's many slomo shots; then he subverts and twists this showing us the reality of the violence, there's nothing to admire in the way these people are fighting, what they are fighting for, or the fact that they're fighting. It's not what people--especially in this era of matrix and star wars where fighting ability--and placing that on the pedestal--is far more important to the film then why they are fighting.
The film also presents a very accurate portrayal of the urban political situation during the civil war period, and not an anachronistic "we LOVE Lincoln" view (not to mention the NYC corruption). Most people have no idea that Lincoln was 100 times more reviled by the urban (and southern) press then even George W. Bush (remember Lincoln was a republican, and people from urban poverty areas have been democratic and never for republicans)--ironicially, like Dubya, Lincoln was also almost exclusively portrayed as an Ape/Gorilla/Monkey in political Cartoons.

This is not a film that plays to audiences expectations of how they've been indoctrinated to accept violence or even historical violence. The entirety of the film is as brutal as the last moments of Bonnie and Clyde, and never uses the light hearted tone that film often cynically adopted.

Then there is Harvey Wienstein's idotic placement of when to release the film.
Gangs of New York premiered two days after The Two Towers, the second biggest film of the year, and only five days before Steven Spielberg released an accessible, extremely audience-friendly film starring Tom Hanks and Leo DiCaprio.
There could hardly be a worse position to put this film to kill its box office potential. Ideally this should have released Nov 1 as counter programming to Santa Clause 2 with an open field of adult/teen major releases until Die Another Day.
But that's just my hindsight opinion, of course now GONY has to compete for it's main audience of cineastes with ALL the other major oscar/cineaste contenders such as Chicago, Adaptation, About Schmidt, Quiet AMerican, Confessions of A Dangerous Mind etc.
THe point is its inital two weekends were extremely limited by high-profile audience/teen movies, BUT its long term legs are limited by being smashed in between all the cineaste flicks coming out.
It was a royally stupid and arrogant move to release it when it was released.

Adam

 

[Edwin-S]

this is such a ridiculous assumption its hardly worth refuting. I for one think that Dicaprio has proved his excellent acting chops more often then not.
------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry if I have offended you, but that is how I feel about the man. I did not say that he is a bad actor. I said that his LOOKS ruin the film for ME. I can never take him seriously because he never looks like he fits the role that he has been cast for. GONY is one example and "Catch Me If You Can" is the other. In that film he is supposed to be a flim-flam man and comes across looking, appearance-wise, like a college kid out on a lark. I have to admit that I was being somewhat facetious when I said his appearance in the film was what caused its poor showing. In all fairness, the reasons you laid out for the movie's poor showing are the most likely ones. Cheers.

 

[Paul Case]

While not doing stellar numbers, Gangs is holding its own at the box office. It hasn't seen a lot of drop off and could still wind up as Scorsese's highest grossing film to date. Weinstein said it only needs to make $60 to $70 million at the box office for it to end up "in the black," and it's already over halfway to that point and still showing good legs. Factoring in possible awards season boosts and video revenue, the movie could easily end up being profitable for everybody involved. Given that, I think it is wrong to think of it as a failure at the box office. Could it have possibly done better with a different release date? Certainly. Considering the release date it got stuck with, however, it is doing pretty well for itself.
By the way, I saw this movie for a second time yesterday in the afternoon and there was a very good sized audience present. I think that bodes well for its future. Anyway, I love the movie and think it is a major artistic achievement. I hope it just keeps chugging along and slowly taking in that box office cash.

 

[Paul Case]

GONY is one example and "Catch Me If You Can" is the other. In that film he is supposed to be a flim-flam man and comes across looking, appearance-wise, like a college kid out on a lark.

Leonardo Dicaprio beefed up and roughed up his appearance quite a bit for Gangs of New York. His looks were realistic for the character he was playing, unless you are operating under some weird assumption that there was never, ever a handsome gang member in 19th century New York City.
As for CMIYC, Frank Abagnale, Jr. was basically a college kid out on a lark. High school kid, actually. He was an extremely intelligent teenager who decided to take advantage of the system and make some money for himself while living an adventurous lifestyle. He was not some hard-bitten criminal who looked like your typical movie style depiction of a shady con-man. Sure, Abagnale was not as good looking as Dicaprio, but this is a movie, after all. The casting was excellent for the movie, something just about every major critic agrees on.

 

[MikeRS]

This movie will hold up, don't you worry about that. Also, this is a SCORSESE film, so 60-70 million is blockbuster territory.
ON TARGET.
And with the awards season coming up, Harvey Weinstein will prove once again why he is the master at leveraging boxoffice off that particular season. Usually Harvey's antics get on my nerves, but if Marty wins the Best director award, I will praise his name to the high heavens.

 

[Nick C.]

Weinstein said it only needs to make $60 to $70 million at the box office for it to end up "in the black," and it's already over halfway to that point and still showing good legs. Factoring in possible awards season boosts and video revenue, the movie could easily end up being profitable for everybody involved. Given that, I think it is wrong to think of it as a failure at the box office. Could it have possibly done better with a different release date? Certainly. Considering the release date it got stuck with, however, it is doing pretty well for itself.

The New Yorker had a very extensive article on Weinstein a few weeks ago, and Weinstein said GONY would need to see $55 million in box office, along with various DVD/video sales/rentals and TV rights to break even. This figure includes the $35 million already spent on advertising, and foreign distribution rights having been sold for $68 million.

It seems pretty assured that with the Weinstein/Miramax marketing juggernaut, the awards nominations/win will propel the film to breaking even if not being profitable, as Paul mentioned.

As many have noted, it's becoming harder and harder for a big budget project to become profitable unless it's part of a franchise (LOTR, Spiderman, etc). At the same time, because these blockbusters have become so big, the expectations are raised to such a high degree that breaking even is seen as a failure. Heck, aside from the franchise films (X2, T3, Matrix), how can you predict blockbusters anymore--summer action fare like Minority Report only came in at what, $130 million domestically?

 

[Paul Case]

Usually Harvey's antics get on my nerves, but if Marty wins the Best director award, I will praise his name to the high heavens.

I'll be right there in the chorus with you, Mike.

 

[Nick C.]

Also, this is a SCORSESE film, so 60-70 million is blockbuster territory.

Scorses territory perhaps, but certianly not Miramax/Weinstein-most-ever-spent territory Weinstein disputes this, but various Hollywood figures have said costs exceeded $120 million, necessitating a $100 million box office to break even