Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: cigar joe on December 29, 2002, 07:07:45 PM

Title: Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on December 29, 2002, 07:07:45 PM
Just saw it a few hours ago, wow, a must see, an epic! The lavish amount of attention to detail reminded me a lot of Leone, think of it as Once Upon a Time in America 100 years earlier and combined with the Civil War.

As Tuco and Blondie were dealing with Angel Eyes this was going on in NYC what a piece of bloody history that was completely overshadowed by the Civil War. I was very impressed, I recommed it to Leone fans.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: caius on December 30, 2002, 07:54:31 AM
whens it out in england?  I saw the trailer and it looked awful, but never judge a movie by its trailer right? (except The Mommy 2, both were crap.)
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on December 30, 2002, 04:54:34 PM
Definitely check it out, and you'll see what I mean, Scorsese does a good job. Its not Clint, Lee, or Eli, but Daniel Day Lewis is a great villan, and the weapons of choice are butcher knives, hatches, and clubs, but it has Leones aura, you'll see.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Renny on December 31, 2002, 06:08:40 PM
It was a must see for me, now I'm really looking forward to it 8)
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on January 01, 2003, 07:51:06 AM
It was a great job by Scorsese of creating and dropping you into a plauseable different world that Leone was especially great in doing.

It has a love story that doesn't overpower the film, DiCaprio, as the "good" guy (I think Scorsese's choice of Di Caprio was one of catering to demographics, someone stronger and more Clint like would have been way better) is after revenge on ultra bad guy Bill the Butcher, Bill's weapon of choice is a meat cleaver along with assorted butcher knives that he carries in holsters around his waist, I don't want to give away or tell you any more.

It's a revalation now to remember that  for example "Billy the Kid" and some of the real "West's" other bad men drifted west from New York City slums and other points east.

I'll see this one again, it is a definite DVD buy for me. when it comes out .

Give me your thoughts when you see it, Happy New Year to All!
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: MartinTheFaceTodd on January 01, 2003, 11:35:43 PM
I thought it was crap.  Sorry, Arn, Hold.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on January 02, 2003, 07:33:27 AM
oh well, to each his own, like I said, it could have been tweaked a bit in my opinion, but I felt it had Leone's touch for realism. I guess if Leone's mileu was the western it could be said that Scorsese's is New York City.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: caius on January 02, 2003, 07:49:13 AM
A bit off the point, daniel day lewis used to go to my school, once every year you see him walking around the school, parents days and re unions... so on
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on January 28, 2003, 12:24:28 AM
I saw Gangs of NY on saturday night, I love that film. Though, as for the epics, Leone would have done surely better. But it is a very good film and Leone's hints are present all along... a big closeup of the eyes as a beginning, DD Lewis' boots as introduction to the character and how about the cannon fire interferring with the final battle between the gangs? I think Scorsese is a Leonian just as me!
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on January 28, 2003, 04:52:19 AM
Don't forget the chinatown sequences a la OUTIA,  ;)
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Il Buono on January 28, 2003, 11:13:53 AM
I agree, there were Leonesque parts, but I think it was a somewhat disappointing film.  Where Leone succeeds in bringing real characters, emotional storytelling and human relationships, Scorsese obviously fails.  At the end the film is more like a sum-up of historical events.  Too bad, it could have been a masterpiece but I think it's not.  Just.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: caius on January 29, 2003, 10:07:36 AM
did you hear what de niro said about Scorsese, he was rather rude about him, well not rude in what he said but rude in general.  He said that Leone was his faviroute director when he has worked on 7 or 8 projects with Scorsese
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on January 29, 2003, 04:37:46 PM
I'd like to read the whole interview to get a feel for the context in which it was said.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: nighteagle on February 25, 2003, 12:13:58 PM
I saw Gangs yesterday. I agree to the opinion of the most of you
that professionally (!) the movie is very ok. Good timing, good camera work, good actors. Music is shallow, I think.
However, when I left the theatre I asked myself: would you watch it again? I said to myself   NO. I have the feeling that, even if it is PROFESSIONALLY OK, it does not leave in my heart a DEEP EMOTION, like I am used to get from Leone films. DiCaprio does a nice job, but Bronson or Clint as "good" guys make me walk out in a state of enthusiasm.
 In my view I perceive that Leone can give them a towering personality, that  is somewhat lacking in the character embodied by DiCaprio.
What do you think?
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: shorty larsen on February 25, 2003, 02:16:04 PM
Why an excelent director as Scorsese, who's known also for making the good choices for the casting, has picked Di Caprio. Di Caprio!!!!!!!

Di Caprio is an invention of the mass media, whithout any actoral skill AT ALL.

Day Lewis is just great, the movie would surely be better if an excelent actor as Day Lewis would have something of his same quality in front of him.

But that wouldn't be enough to make an epic movie, I totally agree with Il Buono (Il Buono: you saw exactly why the movie failed) that Scorsese failed in giving reality and emotion to the characters, to the relashionship between them.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on February 25, 2003, 05:01:57 PM
I think Di Caprio was picked for the box office draw, also a lot of the other actors reside in or near NYC, so that may have effected casting. I agree I would have prefered someone else in Di Caprio's role too. I'm trying to think of another actor that may have been better, if I do I'll post it. In the meantime lets hear who would have been your choice.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Il Buono on February 26, 2003, 05:04:20 AM
Thanx, Shorty, I also thought Leo didn't play his best part, but I wouldn't consider him to be a bad actor.  I thought he was pretty good in What's Eating Gilbert Grape.  And the famous Titanic, which was actually a very good movie I thought, too bad it was a bit overblown and everybody was tired of it when it finally left theatres.  Anyway, I thought a very good part in it and really added some cheerful sense to the movie.
He's no Pacino, but I think he's underestimated because of his sex symbol image.  But who says he wants it that way?
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: shorty larsen on February 26, 2003, 12:55:14 PM
The character is supposed to have irish origins...

How about Ewan McGregor, beeing scottish he can do fine an irish accent?

Would he be ok for the character? He also has to be young.

Waht do you thing?
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Jon on February 28, 2003, 12:01:20 PM
i saw it last week.I thought the first and last hours were excellent but the middle section featuring the DiCaprio/Diaz love story was poor-it slowed the film down,could have been removed from the film with little damage and seems to have been included to attract the female audience[no offense to any women reading this page!].If you want great Scorsese,watch 'Taxi Driver'or 'Goodfellas',in my opinion.
Still quite good though,I read somewhere that the original cut was 4 hours long[and soms of the violence looked cut].
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on February 28, 2003, 05:11:08 PM
Ewan McGregor, possibly shorty, probably others could have done as good a job too.

I think what drew me to the film was the lavish sets and attention to detail also the attention to recreating 1860's New York City in the accents that so much reminded me of Leone's attention to recreating the American West, as well as 1920's New York.  

Bill the Butcher was also a very strong villan which was something Leone always used to offset his antihero, and in Gangs of New York there were refreshingly no heros, only anti-heros but unfortunately DiCaprio was not a particularly strong anti-hero.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Il Buono on March 02, 2003, 05:08:16 AM
I agree, the film would have been more something for McGregor.  Hell yeah.  
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: caius on March 06, 2003, 04:08:11 AM
the movie was deifently let down by the poor poor poor love scene between diaz di caprio, they were both crap.  There was no real love there, not even lust by thinking.  Anyway ewan, no i'd me more inclined to go with with Jude Law, a bit girlish i know but he looks like a mean bastard
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: caius on March 06, 2003, 04:11:19 AM
i agree with this, the dicaprio/diaz love thing let down the whole movie, very little beliviable love, even lust.  The battle scenes bored me, in fact the whole movie was unlikely and boring.  But I am also not sure wether mcgregor would have done a good job, i would be more inclineded to go with the idea of jude law.  he is a bit girly but he has his dark sides, and he looks like a mean bastard
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Il Buono on March 06, 2003, 05:00:04 PM
I think the final battle between Leo and Bill was even a bigger bummer...  So not Leone, as being too short I mean...
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on March 07, 2003, 04:04:36 AM
Gangs of New York has been the first time I saw Di Caprio play. As for the actor, I can't understand - after watching this movie -  how one can say he is not a great actor. Don't let the media influence you in the opposite sense.

And about the Di Caprio-Diaz story: it seems to me essential to the plot, and when I saw the film I didn't feel their relationship so unlikely.

In reading the latest posts of this topic I almost get the sensation that the many of you is considering Gangs of New York nearly a B-movie, and I hope there's someone that will agree if I say that's too much.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on March 07, 2003, 04:39:09 AM
I thought it was good, despite some faults and it reminded me in parts of Leone and also reminded me of what we lost, it is nominated for Academy Awards so it is not considered a B movie here.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: shorty larsen on March 07, 2003, 01:54:04 PM
Yeah, "B movie" is maybe too much!!!!

But I think, as the many of us, that the movie is far far away to be a masterpiece.

Some movie critics called it that way. THIS is too much.

Some scenes could remind us Leone, but Scorsese failed into giving reality and emotion to the characters, and to the film itself.

Scorsese failed in the topic where Leone is a "master", and maybe THE "master".
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on March 07, 2003, 04:36:08 PM
I can be with you someway, but: Scorsese failed, or simply could not reach Leone's heights? I mean, I found the butcher charachter astonishing, and I don't think the merit can be ascribed only to the masterly interpretation of DD Lewis. And this may be just an example
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on March 07, 2003, 05:41:39 PM
If I were to pick the one element of the movie that could be elevated to that rarified height it would be DD Lewis's villan Bill the Butcher. So the question would be how much influence did Scorsese have in the development of this portrayal.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Il Buono on March 08, 2003, 09:20:18 AM
The problem with the film is that it could have been a masterpiece, it has the pretention to be a masterpiece, but it just isn't, and that's why it hurts twice as much compared to other 'good' films.  
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: shorty larsen on March 10, 2003, 03:07:23 PM
Exactly. It's not only that that Scorsese could not reach Leone's heights. He failed. Why? Because he has the PRETENSION to make a masterpiece.

Now, what we can discuss now is the following question: did Leone had the pretension to make masterpieces too???
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on March 11, 2003, 12:58:36 AM
Leone surely had the will, the concrete will to make a masterpiece, at least for OUTIW AND OUTA, and I'm sure that was the only way he could allow himself to approach his work. This is definitive.

And if Scorsese had the same intention for GONY I can't be but glad. I'd blame him if he wouldn't. If you call it a pretention it's ok, I respect your point of view.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on March 11, 2003, 04:59:01 AM
Well I don't know if he had the pretention to make a masterpiece, the book "Gangs of NY" is a history book, so the material he was interpreting was history with the revenge/love story woven in. I think that these factors maybe tweaked the movie in that direction.

Scorsese already has a masterpiece under his belt "Raging Bull".

What is evedent is the parellels between Leone's love of the West & America, and Scorsese's love of New York.

I doubt that Leone was intending to make GBU a masterpiece it just became one. As for OUTITW he was trying to weave what came before with the the end of the west transition theme, which may be why he wanted to use Eastwood, Wallach, and Van Cleef, in the opening sequence, because it would be a way to add GBU to all the other great westerns borowed to form the OUTITW story.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Il Buono on March 11, 2003, 07:37:49 AM
I think that Scorsese did want to make a masterpiece.  He's been thinking about filming this story for about 20 years (or was it 10?).  So if you want to make a movie for that long, you are not making 'just a good film'.  I think.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Jon on March 11, 2003, 10:36:12 AM
But perhaps it was BECAUSE Scorsese waited so long to make it that it fell short of being a  masterpiece.And really,i think most directors who set out to make a masterpiece fail-for instance I would say Scorsese,s best films are probably Goodfellas and Taxi Driver,but I don,t think he intended them to be classics.

Of course Leone is an exception to all this!
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: shorty larsen on March 11, 2003, 01:37:02 PM
Leone waited 15 or 20 years too to make OUTA. Actually, the "making of" OUTA took 15 or 20 years. But, IT IS a masterpice.

Cigar Joe: OUTA is also a revenge/love story, in a historical context, but Leone never took the direction of cheap romanticism scenes. I would say the opposite, the "love" scenes between adult Noodles and Deborah are extremely beautiful and poetic, but very sad at the same time. But OUTA never falls into a cheap romanticism black hole.

Where's the difference between GONY and OUTA?

Leone was a master describing the many character relationship.

Scorsese is very good at it (remember the bizarre relashionship between De Niro and Cybil Sheppard) but he failed for this particular movie.

Also, when you pick Di Caprio and Cameron Diaz for the leading roles..... Well, there's the result.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on March 12, 2003, 12:40:53 AM
Also, when you pick Di Caprio and Cameron Diaz for the leading roles..... Well, there's the result.

I'm sorry to say this, but you are evidently influenced by media, or you can't discern great actors from bad ones...
I'm not a Di Caprio fan (and my best actor is De Niro) but, expecially for GONY, I can say he's a great actor
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Il Buono on March 12, 2003, 10:19:40 AM
I think it's not Leo or Cam that acted bad, I think the movie failed because it was so shallow.  I couldn't feel the romance between Leo and Cam, I don't know if it's the acting or the directing, and there was not really a moment that caught me, except for the beginning sequence.  The film feels more like a sum up of historical facts (look at the end).  It is such great material, but I didn't really get IN the movie...  I think Scorsese missed his shot here...  Not the actors.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on March 13, 2003, 01:17:52 AM
I think it's not Leo or Cam that acted bad, I think the movie failed...

But Dan played at his best and Mart's direction wasn't so bad  ;) ;D ;)

Now seriously, the movie didn't fail at all but maybe I'm the only one in the forum to think this way.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on March 13, 2003, 05:39:54 PM
I wouldn't say it failed at all, I just thought De Caprio wasn't the best choice. I think DDL was a great and memorable villan and the recreation of mid 1800's New York City were well done, and the Chinatown scenes reminded me directly of Leone in OUTIA.

One thing that you may not get in the Euro versions (if its dubbed for you, or if you are not familiar with the sound of it)  that was done well in the movie here is the early origins of the current "NOO YAUK" accent. It was not quite as strong and not quite the same as todays version and it added to the escapism quality of the movie. Sort of like the regional accents of a country where you can tell where one hails from by his or her maner of speach. It sounded New York but a strange antique New Yorkese. lol.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on March 14, 2003, 01:00:18 AM
...that was done well in the movie here is the early origins of the current "NOO YAUK" accent.

As I saw GONY dubbed I appreciate very much your indication Cigar Joe, because I would have made the discovery only when I got the DVD.
It's even a bigger surprise if I think that none of the posts in this topic, expecially those aiming to demolish the film, does mention or consider this feature.
This kind of attention is not new in Scorsese. When at last I saw The Goodfellas undubbed I found out that one of the actors, the one who played Carbone, a gangster of Jimmy's (De Niro) band of sicilian origin, spoke real sicilian in some shot, usually when talking to his wife; and Joe Pesci in the scene with his mother (played by Scorsese's mother) makes a very very moving  :'( attempt to speak some word in italian or sicilian, but he's not so good...   ;)

Bye and bye

Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: shorty larsen on March 14, 2003, 02:30:56 PM
I'm sorry to say this, but you are evidently influenced by media, or you can't discern great actors from bad ones...
I'm not a Di Caprio fan (and my best actor is De Niro) but, expecially for GONY, I can say he's a great actor

I think you don't have to be influenced by media to DECLARE that Di Caprio sucks!!!!!!

If you have a couple of eyes it becomes evident!!!!!
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on March 14, 2003, 04:56:35 PM
I think you don't have to be influenced by media to DECLARE that Di Caprio sucks!!!!!!

If you have a couple of eyes it becomes evident!!!!!
Well, you're right, I got no eyes, in fact I saw GONY in braille.
However, I'd like people to be more polite when addressing to me in the forums. This is the last time I make a reply to such a post.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Il Buono on March 15, 2003, 08:08:54 AM
Well, you're right, I got no eyes, in fact I saw GONY in braille.

 ;D U should write dialogues for movies...
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Jon on March 15, 2003, 10:46:43 AM
I think DeCaprio WAS a good actor-see The Basketball Diaries or Romeo And Juliet for proof.But as he became really famous,his performances have become lazy.I don,t think he was the worst thing ni GONY,i think the tedious,irrelevent romantic subplot was.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on March 15, 2003, 05:12:13 PM
Just a straight revenge story would have tightened things up.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on March 25, 2003, 02:38:28 AM
Gangs of New York gained no Oscars; another affinity with Sergio

Bye and bye
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Il Buono on March 25, 2003, 01:01:09 PM
I think the competition was too strong... and it just didn't deserve an oscar.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on March 25, 2003, 01:21:05 PM
Yea, it is widely known that we have different opinions about this movie  :)
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: jouissance on March 25, 2003, 01:35:04 PM
I haven't seen GONY but I can say that the oscars are full of crap for the most part. LOTR should have won best picture...what did it not have? Look at Chicago, although it is a great city, the film way short of being best picture, etc. What a joke! The whole Oscar race is silly and it is very much controled by a few hippie wanna be's. I know because I work with one of the producers who votes and she will vote whatever her friends tell her to vote or if gay rights is popular she'll vote for AMERICAN BEAUTY or BOYS DON'T CRY, not because they were better films but because she wants to feel popular...I have to hear her crap on the phone all day long about what this person thinks and this other person and her taking notes to make sure she's got it right so she doesn't have to think for herself.
Boy can you guys tell I don't like the Oscars....?
P.S. Hola Cigar Joe (long time no talk)!
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on March 25, 2003, 02:40:13 PM
O but that is why I'm not frustrated by the Academy choices, neither for Sergio not for GONY. As for that kind of event, I am much more interested in Cannes, Berlin and Venice.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Il Buono on March 26, 2003, 01:13:52 PM
I agree with you, Jouissance, LOTR should've won.  But I thought Chicago was pretty good and I can understand why Americans like this stuff...  It reminds them of them good ol' days of the musicals: Singin' in the Rain, The Sound of Music,...  No offence, I can appreciate such things from them.  I like the Hollywood glitter and glamour.  Why not?

Nevertheless, LOTR should've won.  Or The Pianist.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Hippieoddball1 on March 26, 2003, 04:00:23 PM
The pianist should've won because it's superb. Adaptation was good as well.
Gangs of new york was really poor. Di caprio is not a bad actor, but he was totally wrong to play that sort of roll, he's not an action star in any way. The best scene for me is at the start when liam neeson is heading to see dd lewis for a battle and that irish esque music (ripped off morricone) is playing and it just reminds you of the the scenes from leone's westerns. But shame about the rest of it. DD Lewis is overatted as well, not a bad performance, a bit to excentric fro me, just imagine how good it would have been if de niro played it, he would have been much more laid back. Thats makes a villain even scarier, not in your face and loud all the time.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: shorty larsen on March 27, 2003, 03:21:58 PM
Who, in general, deserves an Oscar? Wich are the reasons for receiving, or not receiving an Oscar?

Why Ennio Morricone never won an Oscar?

All these are the mysterious ways of the Lord.

We shall get the answer, but not in this world.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on March 27, 2003, 04:37:33 PM
TBPJMR we here in US don't see much of Cannes, Berlin and Venice. Usullay just a few seconds on the news.

By the way did Leone ever get any awards at these festivals?
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on March 28, 2003, 12:17:19 AM
Cigar Joe,
I'm not informed about the winners in these festivals, I just follow the schedules about the film they screen day by day.

But I know that Sergio has been in the jury in both Cannes and Venice, I think several times, and sometimes as the president of the Jury.  

He also brought OUTIA to Cannes, obviously his cut, where he was personally praised by Lucas and Spielberg after the première (the one where many women cried against the film, feeling to be outraged by that that happens to Deborah). It seems that Spielberg, calling him "Master", said: "I don't know when, but I know I will give my tribute to you in a movie". And someone told me that in his Empire Of The Sun he did that.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: shorty larsen on March 28, 2003, 02:16:12 PM
Leone was member of the jury in 1971.

He also participated in the festival twice. The first time in 1968 for OUTW and the second in 1984 for OUTA.

Surfing in the net I discovered that he was nominated for a Golden Globe as best director in 1985 for OUTA.

Does anybody know if this is true?
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: DjArcadian on April 10, 2003, 12:57:01 PM
I thought Gangs of New York could have been much better. The choice of DiCaprio was bad though . Scorsese probably needed a big star to get backing. Day Lewis was excellent and it's worth watching the film again and again just for his performance. The film should have been shorter. A lot of weak and unneeded scenes were included (the boardwalk boxing scene for one).

Diaz is so beautiful that I would follow her off a cliff if it meant getting closer to her.  ;D Her smile drives me crazy.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on April 10, 2003, 03:32:30 PM
DjArcadian sounds like you got it bad for Diaz  :o, I saw the Piano the other day, not bad.  It should have won, but then I haven't seen Chicago yet either.

As far as DiCaprio I also saw "Catch Me If You Can" and that was a movie more suited to him and to his style. It was a good believable recreation of the late 50's early 60's.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on April 11, 2003, 12:26:09 AM
Day Lewis was excellent and it's worth watching the film again and again just for his performance.

That's what happened to me last night. I had a copy of GONY on DVD by a friend and I saw again the first half hour, just to refresh about Bill the Butcher. Oh, on the first shot on DD Lewis face I recalled again the first shot on James Coburn in Duck, You Sucker, if you know what I mean.
I tell you more: I like to believe Scorsese had it in mind when he shoot the scene.

Bye and bye
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Il Buono on April 23, 2003, 03:24:37 PM
It seems that Spielberg, calling him "Master", said: "I don't know when, but I know I will give my tribute to you in a movie". And someone told me that in his Empire Of The Sun he did that.


I believe I spotted something that might be a slight blink to Leone from Spielberg: the main character in Minority Report, played by Tom Cruise is called JOHN Anderton and his kid is called... get ready... SEAN.  Whatdyathink?  Coincidence?  I do not think so. :o
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: cigar joe on April 23, 2003, 05:19:36 PM
lol
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: TBPJMR on April 24, 2003, 12:34:17 AM
I believe I spotted something that might be a slight blink to Leone from Spielberg: the main character in Minority Report, played by Tom Cruise is called JOHN Anderton and his kid is called... get ready... SEAN.  Whatdyathink?  Coincidence?  I do not think so. :o
Isn't the movie from a novel? I don't think the choice of the names of the charachters was by Spielberg.
However, I'm most inclined to call a thing like this a quotation, a reference, more than a tribute.
The homage consisted in the way of shooting some scene (like in Empire of the Sun, they say, he did).
Bye and bye
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Simon on May 18, 2003, 03:45:27 PM
Sorry, I too thought this film was bloody awful.
It certainly was not a Martin Scorsese movie. This comes from somebody who has loved nearly all of his movies.
I was really looking forward to it's release especially after reading the amazing book by Herbert Asbury. Where the hell did he get that cheesy central storyline from?
Mind you I do think he had a lot of problems with editing and with the studio. An epic that went out of control I think. Shame.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: Il Buono on May 19, 2003, 01:39:16 PM
Yeah, but you can't say he hasn't drawn any attention, lol.  We're on Leone message board and no single topic has as many pages as this one!  Way to go, Marty.
Title: Re:Gangs of New York
Post by: The Firecracker on October 08, 2006, 01:50:35 PM
but it has Leones aura, you'll see.


   
 ;D
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 13, 2008, 01:33:34 PM
This film is incredible. It's an underrated Martin Scorsese picture for sure. Daniel Day-Lewis gave one of the most brilliant performances film has ever seen. I also think DiCaprio and Diaz were good respectivfully. They take a lot of shit for this film but I don't see what's bad about them.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: PowerRR on January 13, 2008, 01:39:00 PM
This film is incredible. It's an underrated Martin Scorsese picture for sure. Daniel Day-Lewis gave one of the most brilliant performances film has ever seen. I also think DiCaprio and Diaz were good respectivfully. They take a lot of shit for this film but I don't see what's bad about them.
For the first time in a long while I fully endorse, agree, and approve of a TB post. ;)

As long as you don't throw in "Tom Hanks should have been cast as Bill the Butcher".
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 13, 2008, 01:48:46 PM
For the first time in a long while I fully endorse, agree, and approve of a TB post. ;)

As long as you don't throw in "Tom Hanks should have been cast as Bill the Butcher".

F*CK YOU rr. You're full of sh*t as always. Try expanding your taste in film instead of being neglected to very few.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: PowerRR on January 13, 2008, 01:54:52 PM
I can't say I neglect any specific movies besides those of Hanks, most of which I dislike. Even Tarantino, who I often bash, I admittedly say the only movie of his I dislike is Kill Bill.

So I don't see where you're coming from there...
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 13, 2008, 02:11:40 PM
I can't say I neglect any specific movies besides those of Hanks, most of which I dislike. Even Tarantino, who I often bash, I admittedly say the only movie of his I dislike is Kill Bill.

So I don't see where you're coming from there...

And I don't see where you're coming from. What, because I like KILL BILL? Big damn deal. It's an outstanding revenge flick that homages genre's I absolutely love. Sue me b*tch.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: PowerRR on January 13, 2008, 02:12:45 PM
No ...it doesn't make a difference to me if you like Kill Bill. I myself generally don't like it.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 13, 2008, 02:19:49 PM
No ...it doesn't make a difference to me if you like Kill Bill. I myself generally don't like it.

Cool.  :)
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: geoman-1 on January 13, 2008, 03:04:14 PM
Whoa! For a minute there I thought I would have to don my black and white referee
shirt... :o
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on January 13, 2008, 03:37:29 PM
Whoa! For a minute there I thought I would have to don my black and white referee
shirt... :o

haha, no rr and I talk like that with eachother. He knows I'm not serious.  :)

I'm surprised Sonny wasn't on that with her MOD Badge.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: Groggy on January 13, 2008, 04:21:13 PM
Watched this movie about a year or so ago. It was historically interesting but struck a wrong chord with me. The use of modern rock-ish music and the overdone slow-motion during the fight scenes took me out of the film. That, and the story wasn't terribly interesting. Leo DiCaprio was good, as was Daniel Day-Lewis, but the movie as a whole wasn't anything special.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: T.H. on January 14, 2008, 08:32:04 AM
I thought Leo was terrible in GONY, his accent kept changing throughout the film: ranging from Leo's normal speaking tone, to an Irish brogue to a NY accent.

The script wasn't very interesting as well. The movie loses any momentum it gained (which wasn't much) when Bill the Butcher morphs into a 1D villain in the thrid act.

The inclusion of Cameron Diaz is another con.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: Groggy on January 14, 2008, 09:29:35 AM
You know what? I'll risk evisceration. Bill the Butcher is one of the most overrated movie characters ever. What exactly makes him so fascinating? The only thing which elevates him above being a stock villain is his code of honor towards Vallon, and that isn't much. Day-Lewis's performance is good but the character isn't that interesting IMO.

One thing I did like about the film was all of the period details, concerning the Old Brewery and the bar where they fight (including the jar of ears). I've read a decent amount on this time period and it was neat to see all that material show up. Also the scene where the immigrants go straight from the docks to the army was excellent because it was true.

IMO, a more serious film on this subject might have been better. But then it would need someone not Scorsese.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: moviesceleton on January 14, 2008, 10:02:01 AM
IMO, a more serious film on this subject might have been better. But then it would need someone not Scorsese.
More serious? Do you see this as a comedy?

In my eyes Scorsese hasn't made a bad movie, and only two mediocre ones: The Color of Money and The Aviator. Okay, I've seen only nine of his features but still... This movie is maybe 8.5/10 in my book. The weakest point is defenitely Diaz and her and DiCaprio's romance.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: dave jenkins on January 14, 2008, 11:38:05 AM
Bill the Butcher is one of the most overrated movie characters ever. What exactly makes him so fascinating? The only thing which elevates him above being a stock villain is his code of honor towards Vallon, and that isn't much. Day-Lewis's performance is good but the character isn't that interesting IMO.
IMO2.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: Tuco the ugly on January 14, 2008, 12:46:06 PM
Bill the Butcher is one of the most overrated movie characters ever. What exactly makes him so fascinating? The only thing which elevates him above being a stock villain is his code of honor towards Vallon, and that isn't much. Day-Lewis's performance is good but the character isn't that interesting IMO.
IMO2.

IMO3.

I've had numerous discussions over this for a few years now, and quite frankly I was getting tired of fighting with the windmills. It's nice to hear someone thinks the same, because I thought something was wrong with me or something. Everybody praises this Billy-boy like it's I don't know what. I've said it already, just because D. Day-Lewis is a great actor, doesn't mean every character that he plays must be great also.

Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: Tuco the ugly on January 14, 2008, 12:48:35 PM
GONY is a entertaining movie, but far from a masterpiece. I think it has more to do with Martin Scorsese than with the movie itself. GONY was Scorsese's first movie after a few years (after ''Bringing Out the Dead'', which IHMO outshines completely this one), but what's more important - was Scorsese's 'turning to the dark side' moment. From GONY on, he started doing only 'mass pleasers'. Sure, he did a few earlier also, but he never crossed the line. Starting with GONY he didn't care anymore, I personally think he got tired. ''Godfellas'' was his last masterpiece, after that he slowly started to fall under the 'Hollywood spell'.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: moviesceleton on January 14, 2008, 01:05:14 PM
GONY is a entertaining movie, but far from a masterpiece. I think it has more to do with Martin Scorsese than with the movie itself. GONY was Scorsese's first movie after a few years (after ''Bringing Out the Dead'', which IHMO outshines completely this one), but what's more important - was Scorsese's 'turning to the dark side' moment. From GONY on, he started doing only 'mass pleasers'. Sure, he did a few earlier also, but he never crossed the line. Starting with GONY he didn't care anymore, I personally think he got tired. ''Godfellas'' was his last masterpiece, after that he slowly started to fall under the 'Hollywood spell'.
I sadly have to agree that recently he's turn closer to average Hollywood director, not necessarily in the quality of work but in the way he works. He goes into typical ready-to-direct Hollywood projects instead of coming up with he's own material. Though, we can't know all the stuff going on behind the closed doors. It's not new for him to promise to direct commercial movies for studios if they let him make his "own" films. That could be the case currently, too. But there's no way going around the fact that if he really wanted to make his own films, he could get them financed by Europeans and other folks for sure.

I just want him to get Silence made before he dies :'(
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: Groggy on January 14, 2008, 01:09:48 PM
More serious? Do you see this as a comedy?

No, but it's not really a serious drama. The characters and actions are deliberately colorful and over-the-top.

Quote
In my eyes Scorsese hasn't made a bad movie, and only two mediocre ones: The Color of Money and The Aviator. Okay, I've seen only nine of his features but still... This movie is maybe 8.5/10 in my book. The weakest point is defenitely Diaz and her and DiCaprio's romance.

I hardly think this is a bad film, merely a flawed one.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: Whalestoe on January 14, 2008, 01:33:53 PM
No, but it's not really a serious drama. The characters and actions are deliberately colorful and over-the-top.

Agreeance @ maximum capacity, Groggy.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: dave jenkins on January 14, 2008, 09:56:02 PM
I've said it already, just because D. Day-Lewis is a great actor, doesn't mean every character that he plays must be great also.
We have to distinguish between a performance and a role. DD-L can act his heart out, but if the character he is portraying isn't well written, his efforts are of limited utility.
Title: Re: Gangs of New York
Post by: Tuco the ugly on January 15, 2008, 12:32:36 PM
Exactly what I meant.