C'est qu'il en fallait des grosses comme des noix d'coco pour survivre à cette époque là.
Le 25/10/2014 -ajouté qq avis de spectateurs IMDb
qui semble t'-il ont encore moins apprécié ce film
(moi je mettrai un 6/10)
*
*
A gang leader/gentleman/racist/patriot/sadistic/brave/illiterate/intelligent butcher
Author: caseta from Romania
25 January 2005
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
First of all, the movie is way too long. Parts of it are really boring.
Then, the story is not too interesting. Old story: bad man kills father, son escapes, son seeks revenge, son gets revenge. Most of the details that try to make the story interesting, actually make no sense.
First, at the start of the movie, the fight between the 2 gangs seems to respect some sacred, honorable rules, as if not fought by gangs, by thugs and murderers, but by noble samurai. In the first 2 minutes of the fight, there is absolutely no blood on the ground, on the clothes, faces or weapons of the fighters although all of them are wielding knives, axes, swords and so on. Suddenly there is some blood on the actors, but on the snow there is just a little pink paint. It looks really stupid because a fight in which about 200-300 men take part, and they all have knives and axes and swords, there would be dozens of dead and the place would look like a butchery. Also, the police could not ignore something like this.
Then Day Lewis's character looks to be though out as a love-him hate-him kind of guy. He is a monster, but a monster who loves his country (Hollywood BS) and who respected the man he killed in battle (DiCaprio's father, Liam Neeson). Although Day-Lewis makes the most of this character, the character itself looks surreal: a gang leader/gentleman/racist/patriot/sadistic/brave/illiterate/intelligent butcher. This is actually what this movie is about. The story fades behind Day-Lewis's character.
There are some other characters that seem to be in the movie just for the sake of it. The politicians, the wealthy family that at some point visits The Points - the square where most of the action takes place. These characters have no role to play in the story, yet they show up from time to time as if only to have something to fill the 2 and a half hours of the movie.
The other thing that has no place in this movie is the riot. The riot and the main story have no connection. The riot does not influence the outcome of the story nor vice-versa.
The movie is barely watchable, and if the weather outside is fine, I'd suggest you rather take a walk in a park.
Author: sfmonkeyboy from San Francisco
4 August 2006
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I waited for the DVD release before I saw this, and I was glad I did. The rental was a lot cheaper than a theater ticket would have been, and I was able to pause the DVD for a stretch break or a little walk when needed, which, sadly, was often. If a story line can catch your interest then the time can fly by, this story line was just so excessive and so overly violent and chock full of character quirks and craziness that time slogged on slow as a mouse in molasses. Other people have said similar, the characters were so despicable, disgusting, dehumanizing, that you really didn't give a rat's rear about any of them. There were one or two decent-to-good performances, but the rest of them you had to figure were cast for name value or because they had something on Scorcese that he didn't want made public. Potential spoiler --- when Leo DiCaprio gets his face slashed in the knife fight, so badly that he is truly horrible to look at, you never really see the supposed slash, and within a day or so he looks like he may have slept on a chenille bedspread and gotten a line or two on his face, but not the side-show ogre they would have had you believe. Was there too much concern that mar his pretty boy puss and the preteens will exit the theater? I think Leonardo has some definite talent (witness him in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?") but come on, he was slashed and stabbed in a knife fight, and in a day or two looks only as if someone had woken him early from his nap and he was a wee bit cranky. Scorcese -- you should be ashamed for this travesty.
Big! Big! Big! Nothing...
Author: surenm from Los Angeles, CA
21 December 2002
Sorry Martin, this wannabe "Titanic" didn't do a thing for me...
I don't want to say this is simply a film for the masses about the masses but that's the way it turned out: a big fat mass of masses for masses.
That said, without spending too much time, I belive the film fails honestly because Scorcese is attached to it.
If this was a film made by any unknown director or some greenhorn, I would have no choice but to applaud the effort as the EFFORT is tremendous. But, when you look at the body of work and more importantly the intelligence and multi-level approach of Scorcese's other films, this film completely fails in comparison.
Somewhere along the way this film was butchered, (pun intended) whether it was by the studio, by Scorcese, or by the batch of writers who's conflicting visions and machismo keep bobbing up and down throughout the story. I believe Scorcese (or the studio) tried too hard to make a film for "today's (young) audience" instead of just making (or letting Scorcese make) a Scorcese film. Sure, perhaps many of today's brainwashed and dumbed down proles might not get it, but the film would have entertained the large following this director has cultivated over his many years behind the camera. If the only story he wanted to tell was a nobody wins revenge tale without redemption, flanked by an extremely shallow and cookie-cutter romance, then why waste all the time and money with 1860's New York? Whether or not Martin is actually washed up or still possesses his own magical abilities with a camera I cannot say, but it seems that whatever his original vision was, someone went through it (violently) with a cleaver.
It's interesting though, as a comparison, the actual base human story of "Titanic" has the same cookie-cutter romance elements as "Gangs" yet it is crystal clear that the FOCUS of "Titanic" is on an IMMACULATE portrayal of both the ship itself, the passengers, and the events that took place -- an accurate portrayal of history is the most important factor. "Gangs" does not present that same sharp and exacting historical focus to any degree, instead bits of chopped up pseudo history and gruesome violence are thrown around for a bit color in an otherwise monochromatic, by the books, and boring love story.
Bottom line: I can hear this bomb falling right now... Half my theatre left after the 2 hour mark, some before, and that was on opening night.
At a loose end in Vienna earlier this week (2 March 2003), my friend and I went into the English Cinema on Mariahilferstrasse to watch "Gangs of New York". I fear deeply not merely for the aesthetic judgement of the cinema-going public, but for its mental and moral health in receiving this dire, overlong, gratuitously violent farrago with anything less than utter derision.
The "plot" (I use the term not merely loosely but with something that would verge, unenclosed with the requisite scare quotes, as intellectual fraudulence) has been described elsewhere on IMDb, so I shall not attempt, even if such an attempt were either possible or worthwhile, to corral the disjointed episodes of Scorsese's free fantasia into a semblance of order. Scorsese's name itself has become a kind of Open Sesame into the acceptance of people who ought otherwise to know better. I was never a fan; even "Taxi Driver" seemed to me a kind of early essay in the pornography of violence that has now become the stock-in-trade of most Hollywood directors. At least "Taxi Driver" was technically accomplished: well-filmed, well-acted, well-edited. Beyond the moderately impressive set designs and the pyrotechnics that appeal to four-year-olds of all ages, "Gangs of New York" is not even an averagely well-made movie. As for the acting, Di Caprio runs the full gamut of his repertoire from A to B, while Day Lewis is a Victorian melodrama villain who, were he not terrorising hapless street urchins with his cutlery collection and unconvincing New York accent, would be better occupied tying young ladies to railway tracks in the path of approaching steam locomotives. (Anyone casting a live-action movie of "Wacky Races" need look no further for Dick Dastardly!)
There is no editing, no discipline, no sense of internal form or tempo; there is "just one damn thing after another". These damn things are violence, violence, gratuitous sex and more violence. There is no serious attempt to build character, nor any sociopolitical analysis of the immiseration of the various tribes of the Five Points beyond the sentimental exoneration of anyone who is not white, Anglo-Saxon, male, heterosexual and Protestant, and the vilification and calumniation of anyone who is. Straight WASP male - Boo!
At the height of the draft riots I was reminded briefly of a far better movie: bloated WASP (boo!) David Hemmings's attempts to maintain a stiff upper-lip as his grand residence was besieged was a sillier re-run of the scene in "Carry On Up The Khyber", where the Raj feign indifference during "tiffin" to the invading natives.
A rotten movie that glorifies anarchy and senseless violence. Avoid, avoid, avoid! I only give it 1 out of 10 because IMDb do not give me the option to give it 0.
Author: mdefalla from Tempe, AZ
24 June 2003
Dialogue, anyone? Or perhaps people are satisfied that 90% of this movie contained lines such as, "ARRRRGGGHHH!!", "AHHHHHH!!" and "ROOOOOOAR!" And the real treat: 500 different ways to see sharp objects inserted into a human body! I don't care about extreme use of violence for the sake of art (or just good old fashioned entertainment!), but in Gangs of New York the violence neither furthers the plot nor makes us care about any of the characters. After viewing this movie I am left with the feeling that I have seen some crappy teen slasher film, only this time the characters wore period costumes and, instead of 90 minutes, the movie went on for 3 hours. However, if you cut out all the bludgeon/stabbing scenes, then this movie would only have 15 minutes worth of plot/ideas to work with, so I suppose the "filler" was necessary.
Author: emuir-1 from United States
22 December 2002
What can be said of a film where the best scenes were the few seconds at the end, where the New York skyline morphed from the slums of Five Points to the skyline pre September 11, 2001.
This film may appeal to those who want to see a violent blood bath set in grimy surroundings and played out by Hogarthian degenerates, but it is not in any way entertainment. I kept waiting for Dante's Inferno to open up and swallow them into the fiery furnace. The films plods unrelentingly through human misery and violence for more than two and a half hours. Never once did I get the feeling that it may not be pleasant to watch, but at least it was raising my consciousness. This was just a film of violence, blood lust and misery, as repulsive as Kurasawa's "The Lower Depths".
I felt as if the director was making a film about depravity for the sake of depravity. As if there should be a voiceover stating that "In the Casbah/slums of Shanghai/Limehouse/Paris/Bombay every vice is catered to. Murder, drugs, vice, white slavery. No one asks questions, no one knows your name, you can hide or disappear, or make someone disappear." The opening voiceover from all those black and white films noire - Algiers, Shanghai Gesture, etc. This is debauchery from the comfort of your cinema seat.
Daniel Day-Lewis's ludicrous leering mustachioed Victorian melodrama villain robbed the film of any credibility and belonged to vaudeville. Far and away the only performance worth watching was Jim Broadbent as Boss Tweed. The overrated and unappealing Cameron Diaz and Leonardo diCaprio deserved each other.
I can now understand why comedies and musicals did so well during the depression. Some of us go to the cinema to be uplifted and entertained. There is beauty in the world if you want to look for it.
An overlong, highly episodic excuse for some burlesque and indulgent violence masquerading part-time as a film of historical interest and validity. With Leonardo scowling, Diaz giggling and Day Lewis doing his best De Niro, this film takes itself far too seriously for the leaden-handed and juvenile treatment of a story which seems suspect the moment you think about it. Its a shame to see a director with such a great track-record try so hard to convince us that he's still 'got it'. Couldn't he have left this drekk to Jerry Bruckheimer?
Author: Sepsis from British Columbia
25 June 2003
Are you kidding me? This film was nominated for Oscars? Of all the junk over the years that has been nominated and has won Oscars this has got to be one of the worst yet! First of all is the actors; Leonardo DiCaprio has no business ever playing a tough guy kind of role. DiCaprio is so girlish that he is laughable as anyone who would be in a knife fight and should stick to roles where he plays either gay character or someone who is just very fem. DiCaprio seems right at home in a sappy love story such as Titanic or as a mentally handicapped person such as his role in What's Eating Gilbert Grape.
As if Leon wasn't bad enough we have to deal with 166 minutes of Daniel Day-Lewis looking like a bum and acting like a confused mime. I can't think of a movie where an actor or actress has failed more miserably in a part as Daniel Day-Lewis did in this movie; he was in a word, Laughable. Now as if the two main characters failing so utterly was not enough there are several other things which make this movie near unbearable. Of this list the first thing that comes to mind is the silly costumes which although somewhat authentic for the period were over-done and seen far too much. An example of this was the ten-gallon hats.
Yes, people wore them back then but in this movie almost everyone had one on which would be like someone 140 years from now making a movie which takes place in 2003 and the same percentage of people as were wearing ten-gallon hats in this movie were wearing baseball caps. The next most annoying thing about Gangs of New York was the music; the same perpetual square dancing music played over and over again as if they just couldn't come up with something better. Moving right along we come to another very annoying `feature' . the accents done by DiCaprio and Day-Lewis, neither of which sounded anything like they should; aren't actors by definition supposed to, well, ACT?!
Let's face it here people, if Leonardo DiCaprio wasn't in this movie along with Scorsese directing it, but rather had an unknown set of lead actors and actresses with an unknown director orchestrating this whole farce, this movie not only would have never gotten a single Oscar nomination but probably would have went directly to cable or video. The only upside to this whole fiasco was perhaps the cinematography and the story. This movie had a lot going for it but was ultimately doomed by the bad acting, poor casting, hilarious costume design, annoying music and boat load of other things that sank this ship before it ever left the harbor . 3 out of 10 stars for this catastrophic calamity.
Best picture nominee why?
Author: NewDivide1701 from Canada
21 November 2005
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
When I first heard of Gangs of New York, my first impression is that it wasn't going to be that good. But I decided to challenge my preconceptions, before they challenged me (Enterprise; Strange New Worlds; Season 1). So I rented it and watched it, but it was a hell of a lot worse than my preconception.
The movie starts out with young Amsterdam Vallon watching his father killed by Bill the Butcher to start the whole quest for vengeance. But after that, the whole movie went downhill and was rendered totally forgettable and unwatchable.
After the murder, the storyline just dragged on to being totally pointless to where it no longer had a story. The final battle between Vallon and the Butcher was very impotent, like much of the action. Another case of big orchestra, little show. Where the trailer was only watchable part of the movie.
And Gangs of New York instead of being nominated for best picture, it made hell of a lot more sense to nominate it for the Rasperry award for worst picture. And in all likelihood, it should have won that.
