Exciting epic

Rating: 8/10 (8 April 2009)

As I slowly drift towards U2, I eagerly took in the GANGS OF NEW YORK's score in large doses.
GANGS OF NEW YORK is an exciting and interesting epic, violent melodrama, scary sleazy sensationalism, with some great Robert De Niro impersonation by Day—Lewis. I have to state from the beginning that I enjoyed it very much—perhaps enormously, and the impression was certainly positive. GANGS OF NEW YORK has qualities, it's lively, dynamic, engrossing, thrilling. Were it not a Scorsese movie, I would probably complain everywhere about an unjustly neglected masterpiece, etc.. Day—Lewis' Dickensian impersonation of De Niro is striking and memorable. DiCaprio is perhaps a bit unconvincing, but then again I never perceived this lad's charm. Below I begin listing the movie's defects; keep though in mind that it's a recommended movie. As a piece of strong and shocking sensationalism, it proves mind—blowing. I did not like Day—Lewis in any other role; but as Bill Cutting he is a standout. I know a few Scorsese outings; GANGS OF NEW YORK certainly ranks as the best of them. In terms of mindlessness and pointlessness it reminds the other Scorsese hits. And in other words, it's exciting trash. Fundamentally, it is slapdash; in terms of actual execution, it's often well—done and sensational.
Historically this is very sloppy and inaccurate and misleading movie:--in 1846 the great prayer to S Michael the Archangel was not yet written, nor was communion received into hand as shown in GANGS OF NEW YORK. Now if all their documentation was as pertinent as this samples .
(The ex—seminarian, or almost—seminarian, or whatever Scorsese seems quite ignorant in this direction. This says a lot about this MTV _evangelizer. It was obvious hat this Semidoct philistine sucks. So, I say—always trust a hint, a feel. Scorsese looks foreign to the religion—and he massively is. The slightly instructed Catholics should know that the prayer to S Michael was Pope Leo the 13th initiative and desire. And in the 1840s none in New York received communion in the hand. If such details are mistaken, what can one believe about the details of the hellish city life?) I know daddy Ebert has the cult of the nullity (Altman, Scorsese ), yet it remains ultimately puzzling the degree of esteem that this sloppy hack, Scorsese, got. Teachout noticed somewhere the anomaly of Eastwood's having the reputation of an auteur; true, and the same goes for chaps like Scorsese, Altman, W. Allen . Or for Day—Lewis having the reputation of a great actor. (One day, finding out that Rourke too dislikes Day—Lewis I felt confirmed and vindicated.) since we are at this, let me notice, much to Scorsese's credit, that Altman, for example, never achieved something as good as GANGS OF NEW YORK. I'm completely immune to Altman's searched and constipated charm.
A piece of overblown sensationalism. Notwithstanding, I will not be a hypocrite and I will admit plainly that I enjoyed the movie, I liked it very much, I was positively impressed by it.
I guess I already have another two comments about Scorsese movies; this one is the least negative of them, the least spiteful and offensive. What can I say? If you are a Scorsese sympathizer, do not take it too hard; perhaps we share another ideas. I like Renoir, Bergman, Visconti, Kurosawa, Tarkovski, Truffaut, Clouzot, Hitchcock, Buñuel, Welles, Fellini, S. Leone, Antonioni, Kitano, Mihalkov, Brass, Avati—though usually I go by movies, not by authors--, I love some American actors—like Brando, Clift, Dean, Rourke, Van Cleef, Bruce Willis, Depp, Pitt, Stewart, Cotten, Widmark; I don't respect very much the American cinema (--with the usual exceptions—Welles, Ford, Hawks, Wilder, Wyler, Walsh --)—in my own reading, the American cinema went in constant decline, through Huston, Kazan, Ritt, then the so—called New Hollywood directors, then Burton and the Coens and Soderbergh--, but there's plenty else to share tastes and thoughts. Cheers!