I know is an outdated subject , but i see it for the first time the movie on dvd the last night , and i 'm very impresed , so i want to hear more opinions about.
Printable View
I know is an outdated subject , but i see it for the first time the movie on dvd the last night , and i 'm very impresed , so i want to hear more opinions about.
I loved that movie it's great
good movie !
I Fell Asleep Whilst Watching That, :blink: Not Saying It Was Rubbish - I Was Just Really Tired That Night :D
:angry: :angry: :angry: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Dapadipz@4 January 2004 - 14:18
I Fell Asleep Whilst Watching That, :blink: Not Saying It Was Rubbish - I Was Just Really Tired That Night :D
Give it another chance when you can stay awake for a few hours. :sleeping: :nono:Quote:
Originally posted by Dapadipz@4 January 2004 - 05:18
I Fell Asleep Whilst Watching That, :blink: Not Saying It Was Rubbish - I Was Just Really Tired That Night :D
....on DVD is a must!
Granted, two and a half hours is too long for most any movie...it must be "pretty damn good". Unfortunately, Gangs of New York is not quite up to that level but the fights and knife-throwing skills of Bill the Butcher were interesting enough.
I thought it one of the better pix of the year. Pretty much held my attention from beginning to end, unusual for many movies made these days.
I really liked the Daniel Day Lewis character-Bill 'The Butcher'. His recklessness and unpredictable behavior held my interest. Martin Scorsese's direction added to the movie's quality and flair (my thumb moves slowly to an upward pointing direction :clap: (oops!...not a "thumbs-up emoticon to be found? :sad1: )
http://server5.uploadit.org/files2/040104-DanielDay.jpg
Woah stop trying to sell the movie guy!!!!!!!!! I haven't seen it but it has everything to make a really crap movie.
Hmm Il Try :D Gonna Be Very Very Hard To Stay Away For That Lo......zZzZzZQuote:
Give it another chance when you can stay awake for a few hours
My dad watched half of it and said he didn't like it. He said something that "it had an old style to it" or somthing like that :rolleyes:
Duh!....uh, yeah. Might be because the story unfolds and takes place in 1863 New York?? :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Forevame7189@4 January 2004 - 08:33
My dad watched half of it and said he didn't like it. He said something that "it had an old style to it" or somthing like that :rolleyes:
Anyway, this thread simply asked for an individual's assessment of the movie. What a dull world it would be if we all thought the same without varying opinions. Only way to be sure is to see it for yourself. As you can see here, the reviews are mixed so, who knows?, you may fall into the thumbs-up or could very well also fall into the thumbs-down group of opinions.
Like they say, "one man's junk is another man's treasure" (or something like that...lol) :P
If you haven't seen the it than how can you say that its a crappy movie?Quote:
Originally posted by uNdEaD$$$@4 January 2004 - 11:08
Woah stop trying to sell the movie guy!!!!!!!!! I haven't seen it but it has everything to make a really crap movie.
I thought that is was truly an amazing movie. Daniel Day Lewis stole the show with his outstanding performance.
This like any other film isn't for everyone. Its impossible for everyone to like the same thing. I loved this film and thought that it was brilliant, but I hated the entire Matrix series. Other people loved those movies and ranted and raved about it but it just wasn't my kind of show. To each their own.
I must say I was a little bit dissappointed with it :(
I mean it was ok, but just not good enough to be thought of as a classic in my opinion!
Not in the same league as Goodfellas or not even as good as Casino come to think of it! (I know they are different types of films, but they do have same director)
Di Crapio ruined the movie in my opinion. It was a great movie but i think it was a bad idea casting him. Danial Day Lewis was brilliant... and also watsup with casting cameron diaz in a movie like this... she cant act in classical movies only modern movies(eg. Charlie's Angel, Theres something about mary). Anyways go see it, you wont regret it.
How so? Care to elaborate.Quote:
Originally posted by judgeofallandnothing@4 January 2004 - 16:46
Di Crapio ruined the movie in my opinion.
He has accent one moment then loses it again in the next. His general acting ability just stinks.. I would prefer someone else. He has that pretty boy look that i doubt u would have back in those days.
good movie jus way to long but worth it
I love any movie with some historical touch. It is in my top 20 movie list. Its not in top 10 because the ending was hopelss. They build up the whole movie with butcher and amsterdam's personal conflicts but the at the end it got mixed up with with the riot.
BTW, is there anyone here who lives in 5 five points? HOw is is it now ?
ur right, thats what i thought, i seen it when it was at the pics and it was good film.Quote:
Originally posted by uNdEaD$$$@4 January 2004 - 16:08
Woah stop trying to sell the movie guy!!!!!!!!! I haven't seen it but it has everything to make a really crap movie.
i thought that it was good because the time period was rare for a good film.
No shit sherlock! Who's else thought would it be? Unlike you Im capable of independent thought.
It has everything I would call a bad movie Americans, Bad acting, Big budget, Di Caprio and other stuff.
I saw it, it was ok, I guess, considering all movies now 'a days contain lot's of sexual content. Although I enjoyed it :rolleyes: 4 out of 5.
American: Well its a movie during the civil war...Quote:
Originally posted by uNdEaD$$$@5 January 2004 - 01:08
No shit sherlock! Who's else thought would it be? Unlike you Im capable of independent thought.
It has everything I would call a bad movie Americans, Bad acting, Big budget, Di Caprio and other stuff.
Bad Acting: Only Leo
Big Budget: Everything looks really poor and worn down if its any consolation
I liked it. It really had that sense that it was taking place in that time period.
WARNING! WARNING! SPOILERS.....
1. I thought that when Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day Lewis) had Amsterdam (DiCaprio) down on the table that it was gonna be a very bad carving up scene (I kind of lost track of time watching the movie... I would of realized that the movie couldn't of finished without one of the main stars).
2. That fat guy that was running for office. The one that put niches in his mallot for everyone he killed. I kinda was hoping for a real good fight between him and Bill the Butcher. But that idiot coward had to throw his knife at him when he turned his back.
3. I didn't expect it to end like that with Bill the Butcher fatally wounded from some shrapnel blast, then being finished off too easy by Amsterdam (Dicaprio). I was hoping for a better one on one fight there.
I still liked the movie. Movie can't be half bad if it keeps your interest for 2 hr 45 min.
btw, my dad didn't like it. He said it was to slow in the starting. I don't think he really gave it a chance.
i paid to watch this at the cinema, and half way through i watched a couple walked out, and i tbh i wish i went with them......dont get me wrong, its not the worst film in the world, the actin in it is very good, and the action scenes are entertain, but all this film is just another hollywood film that takes a real event and throws in a pointless plot......if ur gonna make a historic film, set around a particular historic event why not include some real history, this film story line could have been set in any era. Just like titanics love story, and pearl harbour. im sure many will disagree, but im not runnin out to see this movie again.
p.s the end was a big disapointment as well.
Pearl Harbor please. Pearl Harbor was so historically inaccurate is was a laughable. A movie that would be mostly accurate would be boring to an average movie goers. That is one of the main reasons why I love the WWII movie Tora! Tora! Tora!,which is about Pearl Harbor,so much. The producers of the film spent a lot of painstaking hours to make the film making the film as accurate as possible with what was available.Quote:
Originally posted by Memento@5 January 2004 - 14:03
Just like titanics love story, and pearl harbour. im sure many will disagree, but im not runnin out to see this movie again.
I give the movie 8\10-as opinion goes, majorly violent, odd coloring, DDLewis rocks - Caprio was annoying as always- but the whole movie was a masterpiece in style, concept, originality.
and i love this guys description....http://bestanimations.com/Cartoons/Cloud-01.gif
Quote:
I don't even know where to begin. I gave this movie one star because the only thing I liked about it was the fact that there was a movie during the civil war in the New York. That never happens. I'm a history buff. I love period films. I love movies that take place in New York. I didn't like this movie. First off. DiCaprio was miscast bigtime. Should have been Depp or someone else. I have no feeling on Diaz. She could have stayed or left. Whatever. Day-Lewis was good for whatever that was worth. The title was wrong. Yes, there were tons of GANGS in NEW YORK but that was NOT what the story was about! The film was long for nothing. a chunk could have been cut out in the middle and we would have not really skipped a beat as far as the story was concerned. Scorcese was trying to tell too many stories instead of sticking to the main one. Not usually his style. Characters weren't developed. Overproduced. Sloppy. Uggh! I couldn't wait for it to end. I was exhausted. Skip it. --This text refers to the VHS Tape edition
Was this review helpful to you?
i thought it was OK but i think they should have shortened it down a bit i mean sitting all that time was a little boriing
People don't like this movie because it's too long? That's just lack of paitence and prolly intelligence.
I feel my I.Q is just a little too big this post.
Actually I believe firmly that some of the best films are the longest, i.e Das Boot, The Great Escape etc... so how you can say that's lack of patience is just insulting at best. I've watched the entire series of Band Of Brothers all in one go, and I didn't feel the need to walk away.Quote:
Originally posted by uNdEaD$$$@6 January 2004 - 22:04
People don't like this movie because it's too long? That's just lack of paitence and prolly intelligence.
I feel my I.Q is just a little too big this post.
Gangs Of New York is a great film. Daniel Day Lewis played his part superbly, but the film was a bit too long, hence boring at times.
I thought it was utter crap. Neither Caprio or Diaz can act for a damn. Also hurt the movie that it was hyped so much. Really didn't come anywhere close to the hype. Was just another violence movie...not even a good one at that.
hated it. Good idea badly done. I can't believe scorsece is the director of such crap.
Mostly "hyped movies" can be generally crap while the "non-hype" movies are well..non-crap.
A big disapointment,i found everything about this movie odd.The way it looked the pacing and storyline the acting and the directing all came across as one giant empty posture,a film held together by nothing but additude much like a rap or hip hop video.Road Warrior meets Masterpiece Theatre and fails miserably.
It was like looking back in time. Daniel-Day Lewis is to Gangs of New York what Robert De Niro was to Taxi Driver. Didn't like the ending though I though The Butcher could have killed Leonardo (he's such a wimp he just can't do a tough guy) 6 ways from Sunday during that last fight.
BTW Daniel Day Lewis was Peter Jackson's 1st choice to play Aragorn.
I didn't think much of the movie maybe Leo turned me off
but allot had to be cut out it originally went for 4 hrs
it dragged on too much