"Gangs" a Waste of Silver
Buzz Gluebag
and halfway through reel one was bored completely. From the
rubbish editing of the first fight scene with ridiculous Peter Gabriel
circa 1982-esque drum machine music through the incoming
turgid reels to the totally unremarkable boringness of Cameron
Diaz and Mr Di Cap's budding relationship, I was deeply
saddened.
This movie has turned out to be flat.
Not worthy of a later rental; although Daniel Day Lewis is COMPLETELY
UTTERLY MAGNIFICENT in his role. That's it. The only praise I can give.
Jim Broadbent's American dialect is so bad, his coach deserves
an over-the-knee spanking. It blows ANY credibility his character
has.
The audience at the DGA screening, like me loaded to be
supportive of Martin Scorsese's work, were groaning at the length,
fidgeting in their seats and applauded with a slight polite ripple.
Sad. What a phenomenal waste of silver, cash and years of
people's lives.
Vanillacontrol
>and halfway through reel one was bored completely.
>Not worthy of a later rental; although Daniel Day Lewis is COMPLETELY
>UTTERLY MAGNIFICENT in his role. That's it. The only praise I can give.
>Jim Broadbent's American dialect is so bad, his coach deserves
>an over-the-knee spanking. It blows ANY credibility his character
>has.
but since Americans ARE immigrants- from Britain, France, Ireland, Italy,
China, Spain, Germany, Scotland, etc wouldn't it be possible for Jim
Broadbent's character to have an accent. Even if his charcter has lived a long
time in America- he will still have a British or Irish accent
John Harkness
wrote:
Not to mention that it's kind of hard for anyone to talk about what an
"American" accent would have sounded like in 1860.
John Harkness
Kurious Oranj
"Buzz Gluebag" <Buzz_G...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Buzz_Gluebag-0...@simon.dialup.access.net...
My prediction (remember this): Scorsese will win Best Director for this (and
I'm not expecting much from it).
Buzz Gluebag
In article <3def8beb....@nntp.attcanada.ca>, j...@attcanada.ca (John
Harkness) wrote:
Boss Tweed was born in New York in 1823, I find it hard to believe that he
would have had a mid atlantic drawl.
Raymond Chuang
news:Buzz_Gluebag-0...@simon.dialup.access.net...
> This movie has turned out to be flat.
If GANGS OF NEW YORK is just as bad as you suggested from the DGA New York
screening this could be the final straw that drives Michael Eisner from
running Disney. Between the failure of TREASURE PLANET and the potential
failure of GANGS OF NEW YORK, Disney may have wasted US$250,000,000 just on
two movies. :-(
--
Raymond Chuang
Mountain View, CA USA
Buzz Gluebag
<rch...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Wow that's big money by anyone's standards.
I was primed to love the film; he is one of the best in the world. I think
he is a superb filmmaker and I also love his passion for film. I
practically wore out a copy of the "Personal Journey" doc. and his
enthusiasm triggered dozens of rentals for me.
"Gangs" is flat, dull and you just don't care about the characters in it.
I am amazed that it was made. Probably a case of, as the Psychologists
say: "The sunk cost effect." Once powerful men have started something
big they pour good money after bad to finish it.
Bob
Raymond Chuang wrote:
> "Buzz Gluebag" <Buzz_G...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Buzz_Gluebag-0...@simon.dialup.access.net...
>
> > This movie has turned out to be flat.
>
> If GANGS OF NEW YORK is just as bad as you suggested from the DGA New York
> screening this could be the final straw that drives Michael Eisner from
> running Disney.
From your mouth to Gods ear.
Bob
Rufus T. Frazier
wrote:
>
>
>Raymond Chuang wrote:
>
>> "Buzz Gluebag" <Buzz_G...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Buzz_Gluebag-0...@simon.dialup.access.net...
>>
>> > This movie has turned out to be flat.
>>
>> If GANGS OF NEW YORK is just as bad as you suggested from the DGA New York
>> screening this could be the final straw that drives Michael Eisner from
>> running Disney.
>
>From your mouth to Gods ear.
>Bob
Amen, brother. I just saw the trailer for GNY. Didn't look very good
at all. DiCapprio's "acting" made me cringe.
Arnzilla
Buzz Gluebag
arnz...@yahoo.com (Arnzilla) wrote:
> I'm calling you out on this Gluebag. Describe the main title sequence for us.
SPOILER ALERT !
SPOILER ALERT !
SPOILER ALERT !
SPOILER ALERT !
SPOILER ALERT !
SPOILER ALERT !
SPOILER ALERT !
SPOILER ALERT !
The film opens with Liam Neeson in priest outfit, cutting his face with a
straight razor and giving it to his son who rubs it on his trousers to get
the blood off and is told by Neeson to leave the blood on the blade. ,
picking up a large gold cross, preparing to fight while in the bowels of a
warren-like building. His son walks with him along candle-lit tunnels and
up past other dead rabbits prparing to fight (one has a three pointed
spike kneepad (I think, it's a dark scene) )
Men join them walking towards the main door of the building.
That's enough I think. I can't remember the actual way the title words appear.
Dawn Taylor
Raymond Chuang wrote:
> "Buzz Gluebag" <Buzz_G...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Buzz_Gluebag-0...@simon.dialup.access.net...
>
> > This movie has turned out to be flat.
>
> If GANGS OF NEW YORK is just as bad as you suggested from the DGA New York
> screening this could be the final straw that drives Michael Eisner from
> running Disney.
It's not. It's flawed, and it may not be a huge money-maker given it's subject
matter and the fact that's it's opening against The Two Towers ... but it's
not even remotely the bad movie he claimed.
Dawn
(it's Scorsese, for God's sake)
Andrew Johnston
news:Buzz_Gluebag-0...@24-193-99-120.nyc.rr.com:
>
>
> Boss Tweed was born in New York in 1823, I find it hard to believe
> that he would have had a mid atlantic drawl.
Interesting...per the dates stated in the movie, that makes Broadbent's
Tweed nine years younger than DD-L's Bill The Butcher (whose birthdate is
given as 1814), when physical appearance suggests that the age difference
should go the other way. Of course, this is a movie in which DD-L, John C.
Reilly and Brendan Gleeson's characters all look exactly the same in 1862
as they do in the 1846 sequence, so obviously Scorsese doesn't consder
these chronological issues to be all that important...
Andrew Johnston
> In article <d72ccd68.02120...@posting.google.com>,
The title itself doesn't appear onscreen until the end of the movie, but
the opening sequence is indeed what Mr. Gluebag describes.
Arnzilla
> I can't remember the actual way the title words appear.
Of course you don't. That's what I asked yet you didn't have an
answer. I didn't ask you to describe how the film begins. The
screenplay tells me that, exactly the way you described it, down to
the last detail.
Arnzilla
> Interesting...per the dates stated in the movie, that makes Broadbent's
> Tweed nine years younger than DD-L's Bill The Butcher (whose birthdate is
> given as 1814), when physical appearance suggests that the age difference
> should go the other way. Of course, this is a movie in which DD-L, John C.
> Reilly and Brendan Gleeson's characters all look exactly the same in 1862
> as they do in the 1846 sequence, so obviously Scorsese doesn't consder
> these chronological issues to be all that important...
The movie Tweed's birthdate is mentioned in the film as well as
Cutting's birthdate? Or are you mixing fact with fiction, the
historical Tweed with Broadbent's version?
Andrew Johnston
news:d72ccd68.02120...@posting.google.com:
Tweed's birthdate is never mentioned in the film. My point was just that
the Tweed of the movie doesn't seem like a 39/40-year-old guy, which is how
old the real Tweed was in the timeframe of the film. Of course, when
watching the film I thought Daniel Day-Lewis looked much younger than 47
(Bill's stated age in the movie) but the IMDB says that DD-L is in fact 45.
John Harkness
Well, the weird thing about Bill's age is that it makes no sense --
the film is taking place in 1862 -- sixteen years after the prologue
in 1846, Bill the Butcher claims to be 47, which means he was born in
1815, and his father died in the war of 1812, in 1814.
John Harkness
Arnzilla
> Tweed's birthdate is never mentioned in the film. My point was just that
> the Tweed of the movie doesn't seem like a 39/40-year-old guy, which is how
> old the real Tweed was in the timeframe of the film. Of course, when
> watching the film I thought Daniel Day-Lewis looked much younger than 47
> (Bill's stated age in the movie) but the IMDB says that DD-L is in fact 45.
Andrew, here's a pic of Broadbent as Tweed from 1862:
http://home.accglobal.net/~707727/images/gony/gony_lg_10.jpg
And here's a pic of Tweed as Tweed circa 1870:
http://www.earthstation1.com/History/America/Pics/'Boss'Tweed.jpg
Doesn't this seem, at the very least, a reasonable facsimile?
Bob
John Harkness wrote:
Ah, the wonders of Modern Medicine.
Bob
Andrew Johnston
> Andrew Johnston wrote:
Indeed it does. More than anything else, the issue is having Daniel Day-
Lewis, who's seven years younger than Broadbent (but looks even younger)
playing a character who's seven year's older than Broadbent's. I have no
problem with Broadbent's casting or performance; it's just that the age and
physical appearance of the actors can make one easily draw an incorrect
assumption about which of them is supposed to be the older man.
Andrew Johnston
news:3df42433...@nntp.attcanada.ca:
> Well, the weird thing about Bill's age is that it makes no sense --
> the film is taking place in 1862 -- sixteen years after the prologue
> in 1846, Bill the Butcher claims to be 47, which means he was born in
> 1815, and his father died in the war of 1812, in 1814.
>
Where's the problem? The "War of 1812" lasted through February 1815.
trotsky
Bob wrote:
>
>
> Ah, the wonders of Modern Medicine.
Why the ranDom capitalization, "Bob"?
Arnzilla
> Indeed it does. More than anything else, the issue is having Daniel Day-
> Lewis, who's seven years younger than Broadbent (but looks even younger)
> playing a character who's seven year's older than Broadbent's. I have no
> problem with Broadbent's casting or performance; it's just that the age and
> physical appearance of the actors can make one easily draw an incorrect
> assumption about which of them is supposed to be the older man.
Where's the relevancy in making such an assumption? You said Tweed's
birthdate is never mentioned in the film, so isn't that just artistic
license? Did you really know Tweed's exact year of birth before
walking into the screening? How do you even know who's supposed to be
the older man within the context of the film?
Andrew Johnston
news:d72ccd68.02121...@posting.google.com:
<Sigh> The dynamic of the relationship between them clearly suggests that
Tweed is the older man. He and Bill both have considerable power at their
disposal, Tweed's power being nominally grounded in the rule of law wheras
Bill's stems purely from his ability to unleash violence. Though Tweed and
Bill are not direct antagonists in the film, the struggle between legal
authority and brute force is one of the film's chief themes. When Tweed and
Bill do run up against each other, there's an undeniable whiff of a father-
son vibe to their relationship--Bill's the talented but unruly son who
Tweed the father just doesn't know what to do with. Add the Broadbent/DD-L
age difference to that and I think you ought to understand why I left the
movie assuming Tweed was the older man.
John Harkness
Which I suspect you're meant to feel.
However, if you're looking for anything resembling historical accuracy
in this film, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Those who cannot remember history are doomed to learn history from
Oliver Stone movies.
Arnzilla
> <Sigh> The dynamic of the relationship between them clearly suggests that
> Tweed is the older man. He and Bill both have considerable power at their
> disposal, Tweed's power being nominally grounded in the rule of law wheras
> Bill's stems purely from his ability to unleash violence. Though Tweed and
> Bill are not direct antagonists in the film, the struggle between legal
> authority and brute force is one of the film's chief themes. When Tweed and
> Bill do run up against each other, there's an undeniable whiff of a father-
> son vibe to their relationship--Bill's the talented but unruly son who
> Tweed the father just doesn't know what to do with. Add the Broadbent/DD-L
> age difference to that and I think you ought to understand why I left the
> movie assuming Tweed was the older man.
<Sigh yourself> So you agree with the screenwriters to make Movie Tweed older. ;-)
Dawn Taylor
Arnzilla wrote:
When I was watching the film, I frankly never thought about the characters'
respective ages. And I didn't sense any "undeniable whiff of a father- son vibe to
their relationship" at all. Tweed is a man of political power who needs Bill's
street-based power for his own ends; Bill enjoys the perks he gets from his
association with Tweed. It's a business arrangement.
I do admit that I wouldn't have put Bill at 47 -- when he stated his age, I was
surprised. Mainly, I think, because a man living in that time under those
circumstances would have been much more haggard by 47 than Day-Lewis appears. But if
pressed, I would have said that I thought Bill and Tweed to be contemporaries.
Dawn
Barry Worthington
Yes, Dawn, but the thing that's puzzling me is why Scorsese would
want to direct a film with DiCaprio in it?
Dr. Barry Worthington
Robert W.
Because he is a very talented actor.
John Harkness
Well, exactly. He held his own against freakin' DeNiro when he was
what? 18? Scorsese disliked directing DiCaprio so much that they're
probably doing The Aviator, the Howard Hughes film, together.
John Harkness