The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Scorcese's latest offering is the epic tale of the birth of modern day New York. Set in the late 1800s, the film covers the peak and eventual decline of gang-lead warfare in favour of corrupt politicians and dodgy police officers, through to Irish settlers being drafted and the uprising that sees them co-habiting with "Native" New Yorkers in the present day Big Apple.
It's a strange film to try and pigeonhole. On one hand you have the gritty realism of life on the streets, drug abuse, prostitution and racism, combined with enough historical detail to convince that all this actually happened (the film was heavily criticised for being lenient with the facts). But then all this is mixed with a bizarre kind of dark humour that occassionaly makes you laugh out loud. Whether this is a contrived effort to help the viewer connect with the characters isn't clear, but it certainly is enjoyable to watch.
This definitely isn't the oscar-vehicle that it could have been. Most of the time Leonardo DiCaprio mopes about, crying on cue and calling people names like "Chislers", whilst failing to really convince that he could have survived in those times. It all seems a bit too easy and convenient for him. Cameron Diaz falls into the same trap of almost over-acting her part. The real surprise comes with Daniel Day-Lewis's portrayal of the politically minded (and evil) Bill the Butcher. Real name William Cutting, he is responsible for half the acts of violence in the city, but is equally as powerful against the politicians who need his help to survive in office. Day-Lewis begins his performance with an excellent New-Yorker accent that wouldn't be out of place in "God's Great Big Book Of New York Stereotypes", but it never gets annoying. In fact it has the opposite effect and you begin to warm to his character. Only when he's crossed do you find out how truly evil he can be.
The film doesn't court around controversy. Where other "historical" films may have shyed away from racist name callings and seen certain scenes through rose-tinted glasses, "Gangs" openly embraces all these important elements to a nation's upbringing and displays them graphically for everyone to see. There's no-denying that racism is just as prevailent in today's society, but back then it was rife in the streets. Irish, Negros, Chinese, British - they're all hated by the Americans and this forms the basis for the gang wars. It's not about blacks on whites, it's about America vs the World.
At times the film does become confusing. The amount of different factions that arrive out of nowhere gets a little out-of-hand, and you end up wondering who is who and not knowing who to root for in the battle scenes. But then you get to the end and realise that this is exactly how New York is today - lots of different nations (DiCaprio claims "Thousands" in his narrative, but somehow that seems implausible) all struggling to get along. New York is still sectioned into different zones for different nations (Chinatown, etc..) today, and the politicians are seemingly just as corrupt as they were back then. So what has changed about New York since the late 1800's? Nothing. The buildings have changed, people have died and people have been born, industries have risen and mighty empires have fallen, but one thing remains the same that is crucial. The spirit. And that's what this film is all about - the spirit of New York. And that's exactly what it captures. It may have taken a bit of a pasting from the critics, but I think I found the real meaning in the film, and that's all that matters.
For other examples of the spirit of New York see 'Ghostbusters' and 'Ghostbusters 2'.
It's a strange film to try and pigeonhole. On one hand you have the gritty realism of life on the streets, drug abuse, prostitution and racism, combined with enough historical detail to convince that all this actually happened (the film was heavily criticised for being lenient with the facts). But then all this is mixed with a bizarre kind of dark humour that occassionaly makes you laugh out loud. Whether this is a contrived effort to help the viewer connect with the characters isn't clear, but it certainly is enjoyable to watch.
This definitely isn't the oscar-vehicle that it could have been. Most of the time Leonardo DiCaprio mopes about, crying on cue and calling people names like "Chislers", whilst failing to really convince that he could have survived in those times. It all seems a bit too easy and convenient for him. Cameron Diaz falls into the same trap of almost over-acting her part. The real surprise comes with Daniel Day-Lewis's portrayal of the politically minded (and evil) Bill the Butcher. Real name William Cutting, he is responsible for half the acts of violence in the city, but is equally as powerful against the politicians who need his help to survive in office. Day-Lewis begins his performance with an excellent New-Yorker accent that wouldn't be out of place in "God's Great Big Book Of New York Stereotypes", but it never gets annoying. In fact it has the opposite effect and you begin to warm to his character. Only when he's crossed do you find out how truly evil he can be.
The film doesn't court around controversy. Where other "historical" films may have shyed away from racist name callings and seen certain scenes through rose-tinted glasses, "Gangs" openly embraces all these important elements to a nation's upbringing and displays them graphically for everyone to see. There's no-denying that racism is just as prevailent in today's society, but back then it was rife in the streets. Irish, Negros, Chinese, British - they're all hated by the Americans and this forms the basis for the gang wars. It's not about blacks on whites, it's about America vs the World.
At times the film does become confusing. The amount of different factions that arrive out of nowhere gets a little out-of-hand, and you end up wondering who is who and not knowing who to root for in the battle scenes. But then you get to the end and realise that this is exactly how New York is today - lots of different nations (DiCaprio claims "Thousands" in his narrative, but somehow that seems implausible) all struggling to get along. New York is still sectioned into different zones for different nations (Chinatown, etc..) today, and the politicians are seemingly just as corrupt as they were back then. So what has changed about New York since the late 1800's? Nothing. The buildings have changed, people have died and people have been born, industries have risen and mighty empires have fallen, but one thing remains the same that is crucial. The spirit. And that's what this film is all about - the spirit of New York. And that's exactly what it captures. It may have taken a bit of a pasting from the critics, but I think I found the real meaning in the film, and that's all that matters.
For other examples of the spirit of New York see 'Ghostbusters' and 'Ghostbusters 2'.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Scorcese's latest offering is the epic tale of the birth of modern day New York. Set in the late 1800s, the film covers the peak and eventual decline of gang-lead warfare in favour of corrupt politicians and dodgy police officers, through to Irish settlers being drafted and the uprising that sees them co-habiting with "Native" New Yorkers in the present day Big Apple.
It's a strange film to try and pigeonhole. On one hand you have the gritty realism of life on the streets, drug abuse, prostitution and racism, combined with enough historical detail to convince that all this actually happened (the film was heavily criticised for being lenient with the facts). But then all this is mixed with a bizarre kind of dark humour that occassionaly makes you laugh out loud. Whether this is a contrived effort to help the viewer connect with the characters isn't clear, but it certainly is enjoyable to watch.
This definitely isn't the oscar-vehicle that it could have been. Most of the time Leonardo DiCaprio mopes about, crying on cue and calling people names like "Chislers", whilst failing to really convince that he could have survived in those times. It all seems a bit too easy and convenient for him. Cameron Diaz falls into the same trap of almost over-acting her part. The real surprise comes with Daniel Day-Lewis's portrayal of the politically minded (and evil) Bill the Butcher. Real name William Cutting, he is responsible for half the acts of violence in the city, but is equally as powerful against the politicians who need his help to survive in office. Day-Lewis begins his performance with an excellent New-Yorker accent that wouldn't be out of place in "God's Great Big Book Of New York Stereotypes", but it never gets annoying. In fact it has the opposite effect and you begin to warm to his character. Only when he's crossed do you find out how truly evil he can be.
The film doesn't court around controversy. Where other "historical" films may have shyed away from racist name callings and seen certain scenes through rose-tinted glasses, "Gangs" openly embraces all these important elements to a nation's upbringing and displays them graphically for everyone to see. There's no-denying that racism is just as prevailent in today's society, but back then it was rife in the streets. Irish, Negros, Chinese, British - they're all hated by the Americans and this forms the basis for the gang wars. It's not about blacks on whites, it's about America vs the World.
At times the film does become confusing. The amount of different factions that arrive out of nowhere gets a little out-of-hand, and you end up wondering who is who and not knowing who to root for in the battle scenes. But then you get to the end and realise that this is exactly how New York is today - lots of different nations (DiCaprio claims "Thousands" in his narrative, but somehow that seems implausible) all struggling to get along. New York is still sectioned into different zones for different nations (Chinatown, etc..) today, and the politicians are seemingly just as corrupt as they were back then. So what has changed about New York since the late 1800's? Nothing. The buildings have changed, people have died and people have been born, industries have risen and mighty empires have fallen, but one thing remains the same that is crucial. The spirit. And that's what this film is all about - the spirit of New York. And that's exactly what it captures. It may have taken a bit of a pasting from the critics, but I think I found the real meaning in the film, and that's all that matters.
For other examples of the spirit of New York see 'Ghostbusters' and 'Ghostbusters 2'.
It's a strange film to try and pigeonhole. On one hand you have the gritty realism of life on the streets, drug abuse, prostitution and racism, combined with enough historical detail to convince that all this actually happened (the film was heavily criticised for being lenient with the facts). But then all this is mixed with a bizarre kind of dark humour that occassionaly makes you laugh out loud. Whether this is a contrived effort to help the viewer connect with the characters isn't clear, but it certainly is enjoyable to watch.
This definitely isn't the oscar-vehicle that it could have been. Most of the time Leonardo DiCaprio mopes about, crying on cue and calling people names like "Chislers", whilst failing to really convince that he could have survived in those times. It all seems a bit too easy and convenient for him. Cameron Diaz falls into the same trap of almost over-acting her part. The real surprise comes with Daniel Day-Lewis's portrayal of the politically minded (and evil) Bill the Butcher. Real name William Cutting, he is responsible for half the acts of violence in the city, but is equally as powerful against the politicians who need his help to survive in office. Day-Lewis begins his performance with an excellent New-Yorker accent that wouldn't be out of place in "God's Great Big Book Of New York Stereotypes", but it never gets annoying. In fact it has the opposite effect and you begin to warm to his character. Only when he's crossed do you find out how truly evil he can be.
The film doesn't court around controversy. Where other "historical" films may have shyed away from racist name callings and seen certain scenes through rose-tinted glasses, "Gangs" openly embraces all these important elements to a nation's upbringing and displays them graphically for everyone to see. There's no-denying that racism is just as prevailent in today's society, but back then it was rife in the streets. Irish, Negros, Chinese, British - they're all hated by the Americans and this forms the basis for the gang wars. It's not about blacks on whites, it's about America vs the World.
At times the film does become confusing. The amount of different factions that arrive out of nowhere gets a little out-of-hand, and you end up wondering who is who and not knowing who to root for in the battle scenes. But then you get to the end and realise that this is exactly how New York is today - lots of different nations (DiCaprio claims "Thousands" in his narrative, but somehow that seems implausible) all struggling to get along. New York is still sectioned into different zones for different nations (Chinatown, etc..) today, and the politicians are seemingly just as corrupt as they were back then. So what has changed about New York since the late 1800's? Nothing. The buildings have changed, people have died and people have been born, industries have risen and mighty empires have fallen, but one thing remains the same that is crucial. The spirit. And that's what this film is all about - the spirit of New York. And that's exactly what it captures. It may have taken a bit of a pasting from the critics, but I think I found the real meaning in the film, and that's all that matters.
For other examples of the spirit of New York see 'Ghostbusters' and 'Ghostbusters 2'.