Stream it now Gangs of New York 2002
 

IMDb rating: 7.40 (141,004 votes)
IMDb ID: 0217505
Duration: 167 min
Release date: December 9, 2002



In 1863, Amsterdam Vallon returns to the Five Points area of New York City seeking revenge against Bill the Butcher, his father's killer.


Drama, History, Crime produced in 2002 [USA, Italy]

 
 
Voting
Quality
Comments
Age
Views

Сomments

0
report
Anonymous 1 year ago
My favorite Scorsese film and Daniel Day Lewis is an unstoppable rebel force. The first and last scenes are phenomenal, and the middle, equally kick ass. Leonardo nailed it as well.
0
report
Anonymous 1 year ago
Director Martin Scorsese takes a look at the origins of organized crime in "The Gangs of New York", a factually-based look at gang warfare in 1840s New York. An area called "the Five Points" attracts a great many irish immigrants, much to the dismay of "the natives", headed up by the sadistic butcher (Daniel Day Lewis). As the movie begins, Lewis and his gang are engaging in bloody battle with the irish, headed led by Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson), a priest deeply admired by his people, especially his young son. After his father falls in battle, the young son is sent to reform school and doesn't return to the old neighborhood for 16 years. In that interim, things have changed a great deal: the Butcher is no longer just boss of the gang, he's boss of just about everything. When DiCaprio introduces himself with the assumed name "Amsterdam", Lewis responds with "Well, I'm New York". He holds an incredible amount of power, to say the least. He may be a sadistic monster, but he has a moral code he lives by quite strictly. There's a certain charming nobility about him that Amsterdam almost finds himself swayed by, even as he tries to move in closer for the kill. Meanwhile, more and more irish immmigrants are coming everyday, being conscripted to the United States army just as fast as they step off the boat. The Civil War has so little to do with these men, and yet they're sent down south to die. It's a pressure cooker that leads to the draft riots of New York, an event that nearly brings the city down. Great performances, great sets, great story and great directing make Gangs of New York a modern classic that brings to life a world I don't think I'd ever want to live in.
0
report
Anonymous 1 year ago
I love this movie! Great story line, great acting. Very enjoyable movie.
0
report
Anonymous 1 year ago
I did rather enjoy a casual viewing of Gangs Of New York despite its many flaws (dodgy accents, unsurprising plot turns) but is by no means a masterpiece.

I marked it down because I was unfortunately completely aware the entire time that I was watching actors on a set rather than peering through a window right into the 1860s. A more authentic nineteenth century New York would have enhanced the film viewing experience tenfold.

Unlike most of "epic" near three hour movies, I didn't feel any plot elements could be have been cut to a positive effect, which is a good thing I guess.

Overall, a bit of fun where you get to see some damn fine actors working with a damn fine director to make an above average movie. It's just a shame I hope for more than "a bit of fun" from a Scorsese picture, he can do so much better.
0
report
Anonymous 1 year ago
Call me crazy but the best part of the film is the montage of the New york city sky line at the end.Its amazing.
0
report
Anonymous 1 year ago
Just about as good as "The Departed" is. It's pretty much the same story of revenge and gangsters, mentors and police. And once again the Irish are involved. Daniel Day-Lewis is incredible as usual and Leo is pretty good. Why Cameron Diaz is in a Scorsese movie is beyond me, but she's not too bad. Once again, the cinematography is outstanding and the soundtrack is awesome (seriously, if you like the music in the film, buy some Afro Celt Sound System. You'll thank me later.) Some parts of it dragged, but the parts that were exciting were well worth the wait. And the shot of the World Trade Center at the end still gives me goosebumps. Overall, a solid movie, but "Raging Bull" is still Scorsese's best.
0
report
Anonymous 1 year ago
This was an awesome film with great power and imagination. This is one of Scorsese's better films, and he does a great job of creating the entire Five points for the screen. In this he creates an entire neighborhood that is entrenched in chaos but still makes it believable; skrew historical accuracy.

And then Daniel Day-Lewis comes in, giving a career-defining performance as Bill "the Butcher" Cutting. He dominates every second he is on the screen becoming the only thing you watch or care to watch. Even when he is off screen his precence is still felt, as if his character is still there.

I love how Scorsese hardly gives this film a plot, instead letting everything flow while examining the life and politics of this era. DiCaprio and Diaz also give good enough performances keep the story going; but the real credit should go to Daniel Day-Lewis.
0
report
Anonymous 1 year ago
worth seeing just for Day-Lewis perfomance as " bill" something.
0
report
Anonymous 1 year ago
A great period piece. Raw, powerful and imaginative. It's not often you see a movie like this one. A cast that really pulls everything together, and everyone along for the ride. The story compels the viewer to sit just a minute longer, for that extra detail to build from later. It's Scorsese at top form.
0
report
Anonymous 1 year ago
Daniel Day Lewis in his strongest role, he makes the other actors look like... they're acting.

Really like the whole 360 camera perspective Scorsese used and thought this was an exceptionally well thought out film.

The film offers an important look at a bleak period in American history and is important because this is a piece of history most Americans are entirely unfamiliar with. It reminds us how we treated our immigrants and they're true condition not some hyped up fake over optimistic look at how great Lincoln was and how everyone who came to America was embraced and loved it here.

In my opinion this was a better film than The Departed and deserves Best Picture more, as far as Scorsese is concerned but that's just me. I don't know who actually won best picture in 2002 or whether or not they deserved it more, whatever it's late and I'm rambling. I enjoyed the movie.