With direct to video, you always have lowered expectations. So this one really grabs you. Good to see Michael Rooker playing a Good Guy. Thats part of what works. He has that capacity to turn evil at any moment. An as-kicking, devil-whomping priest!

Again with this type of movie you don't expect the best special effects, you have to appreciate the sense that people cared enough about this story to do it as well as they did it on a button buget.


"Shadow Builder" doesn't only dispose of the ugliest VHS-cover in the history of cinema, it also is one of the most ineptly bizarre films I ever had the (mis)fortune of seeing. The film is a little bit based on a short story by Bram Stoker (you know, the guy who gained some fame with his vampire novel) but the scriptwriter obviously had a lot of fun adding insane stuff that comes from his own imagination, like a swearing priest who operates 9mm gunswith laser beams! Believe it or not, but there are many interesting ideas and ingenious details noticeable in "Shadow Builder", and with a slightly more coherent script, the film might have been very good. It introduces a quite original monster, in the shape of Darth Vader-resembling demon that can only reign in the shadows. He has been summoned by a bunch of freaks and now he's looking for 12-year-old Chris Hatcher. During the sun eclipse, demon-guy will use Chris to make the world come to an end because he was born with stigmata. Yes, very clever!! Michael Rooker stars as the troubled priest who stalks the demon all over the country and Tony "Candyman" Todd has an insignificant role as the town's nut. The film is actually quite enjoyable, but only during the moments when the plot doesn't necessarily have to make sense, like for example the neat sequences of the town in chaos or when the demon possesses random souls in order to gain power. Director Jamie Dixon tries to uphold a constant level of action and most cast members seem to fulfill their job with great devotion. I can't properly judge the use of special effects, though. Some visual gimmicks are quite well done whereas others are lousy and on the verge of pitiful. Definitely not a must-see, but if you're a fan of silly horror, it's worth watching when it comes on TV or something.


Michael Rooker plays Father Vassey, a troubled priest who seeks personal redemption by hunting down and destroying a demon before it can unleash Hell on Earth. Following a trail of death and destruction to the sleepy town of Grand River, home of stigmatic teenager Chris Hatcher (Kevin Zegers), whose pure soul is vital to the creature's success, the pistol packing priest teams up with a local sheriff (Shawn Thompson), a veterinarian (Leslie Hope), and a crazy hobo (Tony Todd) to try and foil the evil creature's plans.

But with the townsfolk succumbing to the demon's evil influence once the sun goes down, they have their work cut out for them...

The UK DVD of Shadowbuilder, directorial debut for CG FX artist Jamie Dixon, comes in a day-glo pink case with a poorly rendered image of a multi-horned creature on the cover; reasoning that the film couldn't possibly be as bad as the packaging, I decided to give it a watch.

Hoo boy, was I ever wrong!!! Dixon might be adept at manipulating pixels, but his directing skills are virtually non-existent, and this iffy demonic horror, based on a short story by Bram Stoker, is a joyless mess of botched ideas, incompetent storytelling, and ham-fisted editing that no amount of CG effects can save.

In short, it's utter garbage and definitely one to avoid.


Shadowbuilder may not be the best movie, but I really liked it. The effects were good and the acting was OK. I thought the story was good and it kept me in my seat. The Shadowbuilder was cool. I liked the way he took on the persona of his victims. When the town went postal I really had a good laugh at the man who wanted to use the ax on his wife's head again. LMAO! I would not consider it a true horror movie. It was more of a action/thriller with a little horror. There are no guts flying all over the place - which is what I consider horror. All of the victims are turned to a shadow which isn't horrific or gory. I would recommend Shadowbuilder. It deserved at least one look in my book. I have watched it numerous times.


Preposterous terror movie based on a Bran Stoker (Dracula) short story. A demon tries to conquer the world through a good boy but a "Rambo" priest and a sheriff gets in his way. Incredibly dull and silly, even the violence here is just nonsense and the devil, played by Jackson, sometimes resembles old Gene (Kiss) Simmons or Bozo, The Clown. Escape from this one. I give this a 2(two).


Recently I saw this piece of crap on the Polish TV and phew! what a stinker,I can't believe the good reviews people give it here.Michael Rooker,who gave us an incredible performance as Henry Lee Lucas in "Henry:Portrait of a Serial Killer" is totally wasted as a well-armed priest,yeah right!!!While a few effective sequences do exist(notably the beginning of the movie)the overall effect is lame.The film resembles me a TV movie and lacks any scares,gore and violence.The acting is alright,I suppose,but these CGI-effects are terrible and the plot is boring.So if you're looking for a good horror movie,then try to avoid this one at all costs.


For once, someone had a small special effects budget, and got the most out of it, while still coming up with a compelling story. I never saw where the director was going with it, so the everything was very surprising. Good performances, good direction, good effects, and good script. Give it an 8, and a chance.


I just have to say that this movie SUCKS!!!!!! The storyline is stupid. The effects are bad. Bad. The 'scary' shadow looks like the spray paint you can use on the simple computer drawing program Microsoft Paint. Wow.... I don't particularly like scary movies, that's true. I was kind of nervous about seeing this, but it wasn't creepy at all!! I simply didn't believe in it for one second. Yes, the story is meant to be surreal, but it needs a certain credibility anyway! The only creepy part was actually 'hero' or whatever Vassey. Not the shadow builder or crazy man or anything.


This film is not likely to satisfy fans of the horror genre(or Bram Stoker). Despite borrowing cliched plot elements e.g.demonic possessions, light versus darkness, etc. etc. from more popular films and tempering them with style, the whole movie still seems rather dull and derivative. This is not helped by the story's predictability and its lack of any intriguing, unique characters. To make matters worse, what transpires during and after the climax can be accurately guessed about twenty minutes before the film's conclusion. So- do not see "Shadow Builder" unless you are a fan of someone in the cast or need a 'fix' on a boring, rainy day.


Kevin Zegers is a very talented actor, and the movie is very good too.

It is very good actors in the movie and the special effects is excellent.

If you like action you should see this movie.


What do you get with a good story-line, an interesting cast, better than average special FX and apparently a pretty good budget?? Answer: a botched up horror/fantasy showing that there was definitely someone in charge who really didn't know what he was doing. It really is a shame because this film easily falls into the 'woulda - coulda - shoulda been' category. Not a total waste of time - but oh so disappointing...


I just love this movie. It has a reasonably original plot and is fairly well directed and filmed. The effects are, in the main, pretty good, in particular the demon. There are some interesting characters, like the assassin priest and the crazy repair-man dude played by Tony "Candyman" Todd. Kevin Zegers as the demons intended victim adds a touch of class to the movie with his well thought out and believable portrayal of Chris.

The movie just screams 1980's straight to video horror, albeit with a bigger budget and better effects. Some people seem to think this is a criticism, but when you consider how popular those 1980's horror flicks were, I don't see it as a criticism at all, I just view the movie as a retro-flick. What really makes the film stand out are the great one liners... Priest walks into police station and says "I'm looking for a boy". Police man answers "Isn't that illegal father?" to which priest retorts "F**k off!". You just gotta love it!


Harry Griswold is a clumsy New York cop who one night decides to go to the theater and watch Kabuki. Suddenly guys with machineguns start shooting at the actors on stage and kills the oldest Kabuki-actor.

Harry draws his gun and shield and start shooting at them. When he gets up on the stage, the dying elder Kabuki-actor grabs him and gives him a sloppy kiss. When he does that, he transfers the old Kabuki-spirit to Harry. This is where his problems begin. The old mans daughter, Lotus must now teach him to master his Kabuki-powers to stop the evil one from ruling the earth.

This is the best Troma-movie that I have ever seen. Lloyd Kaufman is one of the coolest directors ever. Funny, violent and silly. It's full of make-up, kimonos, blood, worms and crazy villains. It also has a funny soundtrack. I saw it on the new DVD-release which has a lot of extra features.

If you love Troma-movies you will love this one. I give it a 10/10.


I bought this flick after hearing, good, bad, and something in the middle. I thought it was pretty fun and had a few hilarious scenes. Kabukiman is one of my favorite superheros now, he is better than superman, batman, spiderman, and so on. JUst not as good as the Toxic Avenger. The main problem with this film is it lacks the gore and nudity Troma is famously known for, but it works for this movie for the most part. It is more of a "family" troma flick if that is possible. It still has some blood and some nudity (if you watch the UNRATED director's cut) but not as much as say...Terror Firmer. Not near as much. It has a scene of Troma's famous barfing however. Overall a fun film and definitely worth a watch. Recommended!


After being kissed by a kabuki master, Harry Griswold (police detective) transforms into the superhero Kabukiman. Harnessing his new kabuki powers, he faces corrupt businessmen, drug-dealing ministers... and must prevent the monkey from riding the jaguar.

I first watched this film years (2000?) ago at my friend Jason's apartment and loved it, as I love all Troma releases. Today I watched it for the second time after picking up the DVD at Fangoria's Weekend of Horrors in Chicago 2007 from the director himself, Lloyd Kaufman. The movie was everything I remembered it being and more.

The humor is cheesy and full of bad puns, the acting is decent but not Oscar-worthy, and some scenes are just not politically correct (though by far much less gross than any other Troma movie ever made). We get the first instance of the legendary car crash scene and some good fights. Heck, even the flying special effect is tolerable. Though after seeing "Puma Man" pretty much all flying scenes are tolerable.

Troma is known for their anti-capitalism views, and it shows here (though more subtle than in "Troma's War" or "Terror Firmer"). I mean, the villains are a business tycoon and a reverend! This is a strength for the films, I feel, because it really helps the target audience rally around the hero. If you're watching these films and enjoying them, clearly you like independent films, which makes you a natural for being opposed to huge organizations. Or maybe it's just me.

So, yes. Cheesy plot and acting. A little gore (but not too much). Some bare breasts for no good reason. It's everything you expect from Troma, though more tame and with a little more plot. You really ought to see "Toxic Avenger" first, but if you like that one, this is a great follow-up.


this film surpassed my expectations, that's for sure. most of the lead characters act with the right amount of straightness very reminiscent of frank drebin of police squad.

and the actual plot line is great. you might expect it to be handled completely silly and ridiculously, but really, it isn't! it is a movie you can submerge yourself into and forget about the outside world for a while. which is why it is a troma classic.


This movie is not a cinematic masterpiece, but when you rent a Trauma movie it's generally common knowledge you're not getting "Godfather". Lloyd Kaufman has never claimed to be Coppila, and Troma has never claimed to produce art.

"Sgt. Kabukiman" is a true 'B' movie. It's poorly written, holds no great truth about the human condition, the fights seem staged, but it succeeds.

How?

It succeeds because it KNOWS it's a 'B' film, and not for one frame of celluloid does it take itself serious. We laugh at the characters because they are exaggerations of stereotypes.

Not to say there isn't some social commentary. I'd mention them, but I figure anyone who watches a Troma film looking for a profound statement about society shouldn't be watching a Troma film in the first place.

In the end, this movie is what you'd expect from Troma; a laugh with side helpings of sex and violence.

7/10


It's been a while since I've seen this film but I still remember that it is a good laugh. Really silly with poor acting but that's what Troma is all about. Like all Troma films it's the bad acting and stupid ott stories that make them so good. Okay some of them are just plain bad, but this definitely isn't one. The Kabuki costume looks amazing and I love the way Sgt. Kabukiman NYPD looks. The cartoon style humour is wonderfully done and this film really appeals to my sense of humour. It's even got a kick ass title song to go with it.

I was over the moon when I found out there might be a sequel coming out soon. I know sequels are rarely as good as or better than the the first film and often much worse but I really hope I get to see this sequel. It's just a shame Troma films are never shown in cinemas over here. Long live Troma.

A 7/10 for this film. Tempted to give it 8. Maybe I'll change my rating later on if I see the film again.


If you like Troma's kind of silly, off beat, absurd humor then I'm quite sure you'll really enjoy a whole lot of scenes in this flick as well. There are lots of cartoonish, hilarious characters all of which have been acted out with confidence and conviction.

The story... well there's this American cop in NY who finds out he can get supernatural powers by changing into the Kabukiman, a kind of Japanese Samurai dude with lots of makeup. Our hero uses his new found powers to beat the crap out of some local small time crooks in various entertaining ways, but it turns out he really owns his powers to the fact that he was chosen to fight the Evil One, who is about to take over the world. He is reluctant to accept this responsibility at first, but a Japanese chick kicks some sense into him and then goes on to teach him how to use his new found skills properly.>


Allrighty then......like 99.99% of the troma movie line, I look forward to seeing the movies that I see in the previews.....I mean who can't........the only problem is that I found this movie......and 99.9% of the other troma movie lines.......and they are all the same......plain and simple......they are brutal low budget movies which to put it bluntly........ummmm my mother said if you can't say anything nice.......don't say anything. A bright side of all this is the dvd's are loaded with special features like no other.......it's a shame they could not do this for the movie........but the previews........the previews.....yes.......the previews are in no doubt the best previews I have ever seen........and this is why if there is ever a sequel to this atrocious movie.......I'll probably buy it........maybe it's the world we live in that makes me do it.......but did I mention the previews???? I guess that troma is good for that producer that cannot find any other company to hire him........and the previews......they are great.........if only they came out with a preview movie.......yes.....I do believe this would be grand.


Par for the course, regarding Troma films. Got a few chuckles from me just out of pure silliness, but it's a one-joke comedy movie with some action and cartoon sound effects thrown in for good measure. Not the worst, but I didn't have a good feeling about myself after watching this movie in it's entirety.


This comical sci-fi cop adventure is set in the future and follows the exploits of a New York detective who is given superhuman powers from a mysterious Kabuki. Suddenly he turns into a colorfully dressed, but still somewhat bungling crime fighter.

My Rating:2/10


9 is a very "Turkish" film as it is based on dialogues/monologues mostly, so it makes it difficult for a "foreigner" to get the film. The characters use proverbs and idioms a lot in their speech; this provides a beautiful expression and perfect and natural atmosphere but unluckily these talks did not translate well.

The film is about "nothing is what it seems". It starts with a picture of perfect and happy district. A homeless young girl was raped and murdered there and some people of the district who are being interrogated in a dark room by the police insist that they are all good citizens, are loved by their neighbours, have a quiet life and have no relation with the girl and the murder. All say that such a criminal cannot be from the neighbourhood.

But as the gilded upper layer of their lives is scratched by questions of the police and the contradictory testimonies of themselves, we face something surprising: the ugly truth. But the question is "what is the truth?" Salim, one of the main characters, says it is such a story that your interpretation of it is the "truth".

"The film offers a critique not just of State fascism but fascism in daily life - in the lives of ordinary people..." suggests Umit Unal,the writer-director of 9 and his well-knitted script(which is a masterpiece of the Turkish script expert) tells us all murderers used to be ordinary people before.

To me, the film was awesome; smart retorts, very good actors, lots of metaphors, amazing music of ZeN, touching Yiddish song of Spiky and the frantic editing...I specially appreciate the performance of Cezmi Baskin(Salim), i think that it is the best in his career.


The movie centers entirely around the interrogation of 6 people about the murder of a homeless girl relatively new to their Istanbul neighborhood. The stories told by each of the characters about their community, neighbors and the murder start out innocently, but bit by bit the oniony layers of the rotten story start to be peeled away revealing that nothing is as rosy as the neighbors would like to believe. Clever editing of the ever changing versions of stories by the different characters provides an often humorous, quick paced, entertaining film that in the end leaves you questioning where the facade ends and the truth really begins.


I decided to watch the movie with English subtitles after I read the other comment, and I disagree with the claim that the movie is not well translated into English. Yes, there are many idioms peculiar to Turkish but they are translated quite well and the plot is so universal that anyone in the world can easily understand and enjoy this movie. I was in Turkey when the movie was first released however I haven't heard of it until I saw in on DVD, since it possibly was not well advertised due to financial issues but the cast and the plot is really spectacular, and well directed. As a person seen almost each and every Turkish movie made for the last 5 years, this is possibly one of the best five and in my point of view it can also compete in the international area. Not that surprising in the end but you'll love it if you loved Usual Suspects or if you're fond of detective movies.


Something is too different tahn how it is seen. You can understand the real event only by going too deep, but you can face something you dislike.

An ordinary,lover class town in Istanbul and a murder affair happens. And than with the aid of 6 characters we enter into the event.

I think this is one of the most wonderful Turkish movies in last years. And this film has been sent for Oscar change from Turkey this year. I think everybody should see this film to understand real power of cinema without colofful scenes and special effects.


Firstly, this is a very unlucky movie. Don't misunderstand me! Actually it's a great movie, however it's very very underestimated also. There are two reason for that: 1- It took pressure from government in turkey before it began to play. 2- It isn't understood. For example, even most of people who have watched the movie and loved it don't understand who is the killer. It has a very heavy plot. First reason of the underestimation of the movie lead us to state fascism theme of the movie. Second reason lead us not only everyday fascism but also (and because of first one) state fascism. I'd like to say one more thing: We can read the theories of Foucault from the line spaces of the scenario. Power relations (goverment, pressure, Turkish word of "iktidar" contain the meaning of all of these) are in everywhere. In the state, in the school, sexual relations, in the family, in the neighborhood and (surely) in the examination room of a police station. **************************************Spoiler: I must turn the real question of the movie because you can't understand things I wrote if I don't answer that question. Answer: The killer of Spiky girl(Kirpi)is the police! For this reason censure committee tried to obstruct the broadcasting of the movie.Okay, how can we find the killer from the movie? Name of the movie is 9. There are 8 people (except the police) in the examination room. Mom 1, Stationer 2, American man 3, Greengrocer 4, Ex-fiancée 5, Photo Firuz 6, Tunç 7, Kaya 8, ? 9. Who is the 9th person? Where did the necklace (of Yiddish symbol)come from? Why did they (the police) stop recording before they beat and torture Kaya and made him confess the crime and sign ? If we don't answer these, we can't find the killer. Remember the words of Firuz: " If you want, all things could have lived in a different manner." Tunç prefer to confess (or do) the crime because he didn't want his nationalist (and praised) dad (the butcher) have known he had f*Cked Firuz. Firuz (who possibly knew the real killer) prefer to agree the accusation of murder because he want that nobody have known his homosexuality (and his love to Kaya)so he made up a different story about the murder with the police along the movie (and the reason of the pain he felt while he was sitting on his ass is not his regret!) and he tried to save Kaya from accusations while he was doing that. Salim the stationer (who possibly knew the real killer) panicked and told a lot of things because he tried to save Kaya (because he is his real father). American is an "other" and all neighborhood could accuse him for this crime. American and Salim are afraid of the reactions of the neighborhood (because one of them is an ex-communist and a cheater while other one is a foreigner) and they are easily persuaded to hide somethings for the possibility to continue their lives in the neighborhood. And Spiky is an "other" too and all neighborhood (Mom, grocer etc.)hate her and would like to kill her. But there is a video tape Firuz had recorded so suspects are Kaya, Firuz and Tunç. At the end of the examinations of the neighborhood, the police succeeded to make people accuse each other, make up false stories and agree the accusation. Finally, the police tortured Kaya (who don't want to agree the "confession"), made up the "necklace story" so he signed. 9th is Spiky (Kirpi) who had been killed by the police (or us!) in the examination room of the police office. And the last question: Why we (or the police) killed Spiky? Katil polis! **********************************Spolier


"Gangs of New York" takes us back to a time when America was a young country and New York was divided. Those who felt they were "native" Americans did not want immigrants to enter their great country, spawning hatred between groups all over the city where many of them landed. In the story we see how much of the town is run by one man, with William Cutting ("Bill the Butcher," played marvelously by Daniel Day-Lewis) being the most feared and well-respected man of the "five Points."

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Amsterdam Vallon, who as a boy watched Bill the Butcher kill his father in one of the Points' great battles. Now a grown man, he returns to the Points to find Bill pretty much running the show. He gets on Bill's good side and eventually becomes his number one man, all the while still plotting for his father's revenge.

While there is a lot of gratuitous violence and gore, the film does an excellent job portraying life as it was in New York. You can be sucked in to the time of the movie, and even though the setting is much before our time you don't need a textbook to understand how things were run and what life was like.

I've never been a big DiCaprio fan, but his effort here (along with his performance from "Catch Me If You Can") have made my opinion start to waver a little. He is good as Amsterdam, and believable in his actions and expressions. Daniel Day-Lewis is simply phenomenal as Bill the Butcher and really should have won the Best Actor Oscar. Overall, I feel this was the best film of 2002 and really was robbed at the Academy Awards.

8 out of 10.


For about three months now, I have (on an almost daily basis) passed a movie theatre not far from my home. On the side of this movie theatre is a huge poster advertising the movie "Gangs of New York". Meanwhile, all I heard about on television was the buzz about the upcoming "Gangs of New York". So, when this highly publicized movie finally opened, I went and saw it.

I went to the theatre, I bought my ticket, I found a seat in a very crowded theatre and I sat. For three hours I sat in that dark theatre and I watched what was one of the most amazing movies I have ever had privilege to see.

It is hard to even begin to explain why this movie was amazing, but it was. The way it was shot is brilliant. The cinematography is spectacular. The story is completely enthralling.

Although the movie was just shy of three hours long, it was not at all boring to watch. The story was captivating and although I knew how it was going to end (because, after all, it is a movie based on a true-ish story), it was incredible to watch how it got that end.

Above all, the movie was beautiful to watch. I have to admit to those who have not yet seen it that "Gangs" is quite violent. However, the violence was well shot and it was fairly necessary to the story.

All of the actors put in extremely good performances. Leonardo DiCaprio really proved that he's not just a pretty face and that he does actually have a great deal of talent (which can also be seen in his other movie of the season, "Catch Me If You Can"). Cameron Diaz' performace also proves that she can do much more than the standard romantic comedy. Also, after hearing reports of Daniel Day Lewis' REALLY getting into his character, I admit that it was completely worth it. His character (William Cutting/Bill the Butcher) is so complex and although you know you hate him, you can't decide why (for there are so many reasons).

In conclusion, if you have not seen this movie yet, go. Go now. See it. This is one of the epic movies of our time. I heard that Scorcese has been conceptualizing this movie for over twenty years; I could tell. The story this movie tells is one that I had never heard and the way in which it was told makes it seem very important for us to know. The message that is conveyed, although not an entirely wholesome one, is an important one to learn and, if considered, is very relevant to our time. However, my only message to you is this: see this movie.


Daniel Day-Lewis elevates this film from just "good" to "very good" or even "excellent." He is absolutely riveting, one of the most interesting "villains" I have ever seen on film. I am sorry Day-Lewis didn't win the Academy Award for his performance. He was just outstanding to watch. His facial expressions alone cracked me up!

Day-Lewis played "Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting" he is one nasty dude. However, there are no real "good guys" in this story. The supposed hero, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is a revenge-seeking man with a ton of flaws himself. The rest of the characters are either thieves, gang members, corrupt politicians or corrupt policeman. Ah yes, another family-oriented film from that kindly director Martin Scorcese.

What Scorcese lacks in family values, he comes close to making up for in style. This is another fascinating visual film with great sets, costumes, color and camera-work. Other typical Scorcese touches are in here: Catholic-bashing and brutal language. (I question whether the f-word was used back in the days this film takes place.)

All in all, a tough film that could be too unpleasant to watch but for Lewis' outstanding performance and the spectacular visuals.


Well, I just got back from seeing "Gangs of New York" at the theater, and I have many positive things to say about this film. It's easily the most powerful film I've seen this year, even topping the excellent "White Oleander". I have never seen a film portray poverty in the 1800's as well as this film did. It also made me feel like I was there, witnessing the poverty and brutality. It's a film that makes us be thankful that times like those have passed, and for us not to forget those who lived and died during those times. It's also a film that's not afraid to show war in its total uglyness. Martin Scorsese definately got his point across with this film, but he didn't do it alone. The cast were all excellent in their parts, no bad acting here at all. Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz showed they are more than just pretty faces. Daniel Day-Lewis was magnificent as "The Butcher", a character whom you want to both love and hate. Quite simply the best film I've seen all year, and I hope it will get nominated (and win) many Oscars. Even if it doesn't, it's a true winner in my eyes. Nice to see that Hollywood can actually do something useful with a $100million budget for once. This was playing at the theater the same time as "The Two Towers"... unfortunately, most of the people in the long line-up went to see "TTT"... they sure missed out, since GONY has more to say in the first 10 minutes than LOTR has to say over 3 hours. Although this film is rather long (2 hrs 47 mins), I was so provoked by it that the time flew by. "Gangs of New York".... A film that's not to be missed!!

10/10 - Higly reccomended!


For all its' Uber-violence, 'Gangs of New York' is a majestic piece of filmmaking. Director Martin Scorcese reunites once again with Editor Thelma Schoonmaker and Production Designer Dante Ferretti thusly recreating a potion of a country's history spectacled with infestation, disease and rampant violence. These are but some of the characteristics employed in an unconventional manner in hopes of telling a memorable story. Scorcese displays to the filmmaking world how imaginative he can be with his long overdue, epic and costly motion picture based upon a time in New York City's history where violence was not sporadic, but a necessity for survival. Set directly in New York's Five Points District, on a micro scale the film tells the vengeful story of Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo Di Caprio), a young man who returns 16 years after being banished from Five Points after witnessing his father's defeat at the hands of a vicious rival known as Bill The Butcher; infamous for his fixation with the meats and his innate sense of slaughterous murder. Upon Amsterdam's return, he has but one aim - avenge his father's death at the hands of the vicious 'community leader' William Cutting,, a.k.a. Bill The Butcher. Cutting prides himself as being a sadistic and remorseless thug who surrounds himself with the filth of the community in order to profit himself and his political allies. Daniel Day Lewis comes out of seclusion for a craft he apparently dislikes and simply nails this performance as a sophisticated and well-spoken murderer who has no parameters nor morals to bound him. He fights for the Yankee Way and opposes anyone who threatens the American lifestyle.

On a macro scale, the story is a piece of American history as it recreates the arduous battles commenced in 1846 between the Irish settlers and the Anglo- Saxon 'natives' who sought to protect their country against foreigners. In all of this, the draft riots are explicitly revealed as those who chose not to fight were sought out and forced to. At one point, the film effortlessly demonstrates how immigrants were drafted right off the boats as they had a suitcase from a foreign country one moment, and an American Uniform the next practically unable to speak the English language, yet ready to wage war against an unknown enemy. The draft riot scene is a pivotal sequence in the film as it prepares the anti-climactic finale in which more violence and an astonishing amount of blood are spilled over the original streets of New York. This film makes every effort in highlighting what the term 'gang' means as it has undergone various permutations in definition. The original story by Jay Cocks (The Age of Innocence) has been filtered by Kenneth Lonergan (Analyze This) and Steven Zaillan (Hannibal) and contains the conventional pratfalls of Hollywood Cinema such as double crosses and plot twists, yet they are thankfully kept to a minimal. The story retains its core not so much on the development of the characters, but on the development of the times and interestingly enough, the interplay between Bill The Butcher and his rival Priest Vallon was stressed. Despite their differences and years after Priest's death, The Butcher still honored and celebrated his life. Sharing the same values and only divided by faith, honor was still a trait some had amidst all the ruins. Throughout all this lies an ingenious film in which Scorcese allows his characters to develop and evolve, as the film is a delicate piece of cinema balanced against a sensitive subject matter and directed with the utmost class and originality. Production Designer Dante Ferretti recreates the filth-infested streets and deplorable living conditions as poverty, decay, infestation and paucity are not spared in order to retell one of the vilest stories in recent memory. Those who are familiar with Scorcese's work will know he is the machine behind such films as 'Casino', 'Goodfellas' and the perennial classics 'Taxi Driver' and 'Raging Bull'. Those films are always under constant attack for the apparently amoral manner in which they exude violence, and now Scorcese can add the cornerstone of all violent films with 'Gangs of New York'. This is a perversely tempestuous violence-riddled film filled with gore, viciousness and intensity all in good use in order to demonstrate the living conditions when everyone had to sleep with one eye open. The film commences with no opening credits, just the company credits roll as we see Liam Neeson play the character of Priest Vallon, a highly admirable Community leader also fighting for what he believes in, the safety and prosperity of the Irish people based in New York. As the film opens, we see him bestow values upon a young Amsterdam Vallon as an opening battle sequence of epic proportions is mounting. The weapons are being bladed, prayers are being said and families are told goodbye as these warriors will clash on the streets of New York for the right to claim property and ownership of honor amongst thieves. Eerily close to the Brian De Palma School of suspenseful filmmaking, Scorcese seems to take a page from the aforementioned Director as the opening sequence is mounted in a very resourceful manner. Quick editing cuts thanks to Thelma Schoonmaker's hand demonstrate the weapons being sharpened as one tracking camera shot pans through the Dead Rabbits Gang led by Priest Vallon as the increasing volume in music indicates war is near. The camera tracks all the characters as we have been inside from the beginning of the film, and we have been introduced to the poverty and wretchedness of the times in a dark and cold shelter. Then the camera points towards a door and as it opens, all we see is a blanket of white symbolically representing the purity of the war and its' valor, but foreshadowing the red coat of paint about the cover the cobble stoned streets of New York. Phenomenal. That is filmmaking, and as the pace quickens, the war commences as challenges are made, met and the massacre ensues as our film slowly introduces the viewer to the violence as Scorcese aims to condition the viewer - B.F. Skinner style. This is somewhat different than his other outings whereas in both 'Goodfellas' and 'Casino' Scorcese boldly introduces ultra-violence without the slightest amount of warning. In this film, Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis) commences the war immediately as he slices and dices his way through the street enmeshed in a series of direct stab wounds yet no blood, but as he progresses and continues his assault, the knives are introduced as blood soaked, then the puncture wounds are accentuated as he pierces his way through flesh and finally we see his face saturated in the blood of others against the intentionally misplaced musical score of Howard Shore (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy).

This sets the tone for a film not aiming to please anyone or to alleviate the discourse of cinematic violence. It recreates a time when violence was rampant and for the purposes of storytelling, the violence quotient was necessary to give justice to the lewdness of the situation. Even women are not spared as Cameron Diaz portrays a charismatic pocket thief named Jennie Everdeane.

Despite her romantic engagement with Amsterdam, through her savage beating Scorcese displays no one was spared during the riots from the hands of predatory thieves who were vying to survive. Many have voiced criticism over the lengthy running time, and while many have stated there were segments which could have been trimmed, I disagree. At a running time of approximately two hours and forty minutes, the film recreates a piece of history sought with fragility and values conveyed to the viewer. People would give their lives for this war waged for the rights to claim ownership of NYC and it was of the utmost importance to develop that religious fanaticism closely. The characters in the film resemble heavily wrapped boxes, in which Scorcese allows to be unwrapped a little at a time; all the while he displays his prowess as a Director who astonishes with this film. For it is true the pacing was uneven at times, and the unraveling of the characters could have been sped up. But all of this is intentional in order to evoke a climax which represents their war between the Foreigners and the Anglo-Saxons in a city that had enough of its' riotous ways. While the violence will surely turn off Academy Members, Daniel Day Lewis' performance will not and this film will stand the true test of time as a story so unequivocally told it will remain indelibly etched in viewers minds long after the final sequence. Transition shots display the evolution of New York City from a point of view of a tombstone nestled right under the Brooklyn Bridge. Cross dissolves start in 1863 and documents the changes from that exact point up until the time the Two Towers of NYC were standing. Perhaps reminding the world despite the progression of mankind, we are still not civilized.

Giancarlo's Rating: ***


Whatever you do, do not waste your dough on this trash. They say it's directed by Martin Scorsese, but it was obviously directed by Kevin Costner. Think *WaterWorld* without the pleasant diversion of being able to look at the ocean. Not only is it pointlessly violent (and I'm a guy who doesn't at all mind the occasional decapitation or disemboweling as someone is telling me a story), but my god is this moving BORING!

SPOILERS FOLLOW.

Daniel Day-Lewis plays a Bill Sykes-send up with a truly laughable makeup job and an accent that's as carefree as the wind. You never really know why he hates Irish immigrants so much (a mere generation away from being an immigrant himself), and you never understand why everyone in The Five Points slum is so loyal toward and protective of him when he does absolutely nothing to alleviate the poverty and squalor of their senseless, miserable lives. (Oh yeah, since his legitimate front is as a butcher, he occasionally throws a decent steak their way.) Don't get me started on Cameron Diaz, The Whore With The Heart of Gold (because THAT's a story that hasn't been told enough) who, inexplicably is the only character in the movie with clean teeth. Liam Neeson, who croaks before the end of the first reel, is one lucky bastard.

After the first 20 minutes, of course, anyone not watching the movie in Braille understands perfectly what the one and only dramatic issue is going to be (REVENGE!!) and you can step out for Chinese while the movie drags its ass toward its inevitable and tedious conclusion. Granted, *Gangs* might have made some use of the obvious Shakespearean themes, but Scorsese doesn't even try to handle them. Thus, though you might entertain a flicker of interest in the Hamletesque question of whether the son will avenge the father, you wind up so bored w/DiCaprio that you don't freakin' care anymore by the time he gets around to doing the deed (which is rather done for him before he even bothers to show up).

In fact, though Leonardo keeps staring out at you from that bland little face and trying to convince you that he's struggling with Complex Moral Issues, the fact is: Every single person in this movie is reprehensible and evil, with differences in degree but never in kind. And if there are no good guys, why are you supposed to be cheering at the climactic scene when (for about the 11th time) the streets yet again run gooey w/blood and body parts?

And yet, Scorsese tries. Toward the end of the movie, he picks up the nearest blunt instrument and bashes away at the plot until he's grafted an obvious hero (DiCaprio) and an irrelevant hetero love story (DiCaprio and Diaz) onto it. In other words, Martin Scorsese has nothing but contempt for you. You're too stupid to realize that DiCaprio's character is a venal, murderous little crook and you'll be mollified by a pretty romance between him and a sociopathic pickpocket prostitute. Because the history of America began between the sheets.

This is the movie you'd get if Oliver Stone and Hannibal Lecter collaborated on an American history epic, and it's about as cynical a piece of trash as I hope never again to see.


" What did you think of Gangs Of New York ? " I asked my father who is also a big Scorsese fan .

" I thought it was a load of " ££$%^^$"£* £$% " he replied " The actors looked like they were all going to burst out singing "

I could see where he was coming from although I didn't disagree with him 100 % . GANGS OF NEW YORK had some really extreme opinions from its audience ,a point reflected in the comments thrown at it on this site .I didn't think it was as bad as my dad made out but like I said I could seewhere he was coming from

My major problem with the movie is the screenplay . the opening shot sees Bill " The Butcher " Cutting kill Priest Vallon in front of his son who runs away swearing revenge for his dead father . From that point onwards we know that the story will end years later with a confrontation between the two protagonists so there's no more dramatic twists for the story to take . Actually this in itself isn't too bad but what spoils the story is the way it's held up with the character interaction between Amsterdamn and Jenny Everdeane . Scorsese doesn't do romantic interlude very well and this movie proves it . In amongst this diversion there's something of a plot hole since Bill takes the young Amsterdamn under his wing even though he knows who he is . If you bumped off someones father in a street fight would you adopt their kids ? I didn't think so

This could have been an absolutely brilliant script and it is very good in places where we see how the gangs are structured , their ethnic mix and their political affiliations - Some are protestant with members who were born in America , some are catholic with many members born in Ireland , all are anglophobe and they all hate each other . We also see one of the most cynical episodes in American history where immigrants getting off ships at New York are immediately conscripted into the Union army unless they pay 300 dollars which eventually leads to the draft riots . When the movie concentrates on these parts of the plot it's a great film but becomes heavily bogged down by the character subplots

If Scorsese had directed this 20 years ago with a fraction of the budget he had here this could have been his masterwork but he seems to have overawed by riches . Everything is just a bit too grandiose and operatic to be entirely convincing . Charles Dickens had visited the five points and is recorded as saying it was the worst place on Earth . Scorsese makes the streets a little too clean , a little too Hollywood grunge , a little too glamorous in spite of everything . Leonardo Dicaprio is a very underrated actor held back by his startling good looks but he's wrong as Amsterdamn and wasn't right for the part which should have gone to an unknown . Cameron Diaz is totally unconvincing as Jenny and Scorsese could have easily given the part to a real life NY hooker while Daniel Day Lewis gives a powerhouse performance as Bill Cutting , however the role is slightly overplayed especially compared to Lewis's other work

Indeed everyone involved in GANGS OF NEW YORK in whatever capacity has done far better in other movies and at the end of the day this is a very unsatisfying flawed picture which received more nominations than it did prizes at award ceremonies , and I'm somewhat happy about that because this movie isn't a crowning achievement for anyone , especially Martin Scorsese or Daniel Day Lewis who are capable of better things

Seven out of Ten


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.


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.


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?


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.


Martin Scorsese directs a savage and brutal masterpiece. A young boy(Leonardo DiCaprio)witnesses the killing of his father the Priest Vallon(Liam Neeson). Amsterdam Vallon(DiCaprio)returns from a fifteen year or so stay in reform school to the Five Points area of NYC seeking revenge against Bill the Butcher(Daniel Day-Lewis), his father's killer. Bill is a racist bully and believes he is the king of New York, or at least his own little corner of the world. Amsterdam gets in the good graces of the Butcher only to plot his demise. Along the way the young Vallon meets a pocket picking whore Jenny(Cameron Diaz)and reluctantly falls in love. The tribes of the city are summoned for the mother of all knock down drag out duels with the Butcher and Amsterdam intent on slaying the other.

The scenes of 1840s and 1860s New York City are awesome. Great photography and camera work. The most dramatic scene is of the blood covered and body cluttered snow at the film's beginning. This of course seems tame compared to the carnage that brings this epic to a close. Day-Lewis is commanding in his role of the Butcher, one the most egotistical and racist savage characters unable to escape your memory. DiCaprio seems an awkward choice for his role and at times seems unlikely to achieve his character's accomplishments. Diaz was down right fetching and I still believe she could tempt a dead man. Also in the cast are Jim Broadbent, Brendan Gleeson, David Hemmings, Joseph P. Reidy, Henry Thomas and John C. Reilly.

Sometimes a little bit too wordy and slow, but still this almost three hour film is strong enough to hold your interest and imagination. In spite of the nay-sayers I believe Scorcese is a master among his peers. And being Irish is no requirement for feeling some pride or sorrow.


Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) is the leader of the Dead Rabbits gang. Bill, `The Butcher' is the leader of the Nativist gang. They fight against each other and Bill kills the Priest. Priest Vallon's son witness the murder of his father and is sent to a reformatory for delinquents. Some years later, he returns as Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio), gets closer to Bill, becomes his protégée and meets Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), who becomes his mate. Amsterdam intends to revenge his father. These events happen having the landscape of the American Civil War. This drama is very shallow and maybe may interest Americans (and specially New Yorkers), since it mixes historical facts and fiction. There is a great cast and a beautiful reconstitution of a period. I myself expected much more from this film due to the lots of nomination it had. It seems to me that it is too much pretentious. My vote is eight.


I expected a lot better from this director but frankly this film is the greatest load of rubbish I have seen in a long time. Plot? What plot? Story? What story? For the life of me I cannot even guess WHY anyone would want to release this crap!


I don't go a lot of movies in the theatres, but when this one came back out after being nominated for a pile of oscars, I made the mistake of assuming that it would be a great movie.

I can safely say that this movie was the worst thing I have ever seen. (of course I have yet to sit through Plan 9 from Outer Space)

I kept waiting for some sort of story to emerge that I could relate to on some level, but that never happened. But I waited through 3 long hours for it... and I still don't know what the movie was trying to say. I didn't care about any of the characters, and was actually just bored and little disgusted with all the bloody violence.


A good friend of mine recommended this movie to me, since we are both in History at University I thought I would give it a shot. The beginning of the movie I was really interested, filled with action and a sense of revenge for the main character. However, it just started going downhill from there. I found that there were too many useless characters that brought little or no addition to the plot. Most of the film was filled with uninteresting dialog and plot twists. In all honesty, this movie should not have been over 2 hours long. I just found that there were too many scenes that needed to be shortened and get to the point. Overall, Gangs of New York seemed to drag on and on. While the cast was excellent and the acting was amazing the story was just awful. After the first hour of the film, I found myself not connecting with the characters, hence became extremely boring. Films which are pushing a 3 hour time span should keep the audience entertained with character development, action, and story. However Gangs of New York seemed to fail at all of these except boring the heck out of me. I would much rather watch Pearl Harbor than Gangs of New York.


I went to see this in the theatres after hearing about how many oscar nominations it was up for. It is painfully slow, very bloody, with no plot to relate to (unless maybe you live in NYC). The only reason I didn't leave before the 3 hours of torture were over was because I was expecting it to get good (oscar nominations) and I paid full price to go.

If you haven't seen it yet, don't waste your time or money.


What is it with film directors that they cannot produce consistently good work once fame and reverence goes to their head? Scorsese is considered the greatest US filmmaker still active (by all those who don't think so of Spielberg). Much like his endlessly-feuding, barbaric, mid-19th century New Yorkers, the man seems to have worn his welcome in history, and what a sad, sad realization that is.

His masterpieces ("Mean Streets", "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "Goodfellas"), will always remain such, and hopefully endure in the annals of cinema. But why, why such travesty?

Abandoning his unique style in favor of a concoction between "Moulin Rouge" and "Braveheart" (with a bit of "The Postman" thrown in for good measure), Scorsese, in his apparent eagerness to catch up to the 21st century, seems to have adopted the worst traits of modern moviemaking. The next step in this witches' brew of a film is assembling the most familliar and tired screenwriting cliches, grinding them, stirring them to a boil, and then pouring them out onto the screen. Add to that a haphazard, sluggish editing, which may or may not be the result of Scorsese's battle with Miramax. Then some generic actors who clearly look uncomfortable and not even very significant before such a gigantic ego. Construct a post-apocalyptic looking set, and include a CGI(!) elephant stampede during the climax. Shall I even continue?

GONY's underlying themes are even more dubious and incomprehensible - what are we supposed to make of the primitive stab at Civil-War America's social/ethnic urban politics? Vengeance, religion, parenthood, and yes, democracy - are distilled to a comic-book level.

What has happened to the master who in his heyday created such dynamic, urgent, intoxicating (and subtle, in their own inimitable fashion) character studies? After seeing this grandiose folly, one wishes that Scorsese would have taken a graceful exit, and retired or stuck to film preservation. Bergman, for example, has not made a feature film in almost 20 years, and that makes him no less great...


3 hours of crap.

Point blank this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Keep in mind that I only say this because this movie should be good. (Decent actors, big budget, Scoresese, etc.)

Instead this movie just falls flat on its 3 hour face. This movie is almost as bad as "Waterworld". I think this movie could have easily cut out 60 minutes. (It would still be bad but at least not the kind of bad that makes you want to run off the nearest sufficiently high place, all the while screaming curses that would make a sailor blush.)

If you have been waiting all your life for a movie that could combine insulting predictability with the length of "Pearl Harbor" then this is the movie for you.


I found myself, after nearly two hours, wondering, if I had any self respect, "would I still be watching this awful film?" I left the theater.

This film is s***e.


this film was far from amazing, D D Lewis was very good and Leo De-Caprio was ok but that's where the praise stops. Diaz was terrible, her character had no layers and was deviod of any emotion. The scripting was inconsistent and the direction was sluggish and jaded. There was hardly any plot and the one that was there was full of holes. The humor some people pointed out distracted from the film rather than added to it, it was needless for a film of this nature, Gangs Of New York is meant to be about rivalry, revenge and drama, and although there were a couple of places where the dark humor really worked there were too many instances where the humor felt like tacted-on Hollywood cheese. If you want to get some cheep thrills by seeing a bit of violence and mild nudity then this is the film for you, if you are looking for a cinematic experience don't bother, it'd be a waste of a 3 hours of your life.


Gangs of New York quickly became one of my favorite movies of all time. I can't think of another film like in recent memory. And the acting in this movie is unreal. DiCaprio is great, this is the role that changed his image from pretty boy to badass. That being said, don't forget about Day-Lewis. He's fantastic. I know, he's always fantastic, but not like this. His character, The Butcher, should go down as one of the best villains in cinema history. But enough about the acting, how about the directing? Masterful. Scorsese is a genius. He takes his movies above and beyond what others are capable of. He's truly in a league of his own. The mechanics of this movie are amazing. The sets, the dialog, the costumes, the camera angles, the sound, the music... all are flawless. The last shot in the movie(the one of the cemetery along the river with New York in the background) is easily one of the coolest scenes of all time, of any movie. Its incredible. I have no idea why this movie is not in the IMDb Top 250, I think it deserves to be in the Top 50!!! If you haven't seen this movie and you enjoy watching movies whatsoever, go watch this movie. ITS INCREDIBLE!!!


When Martin Scorsese sets out to make a movie you know it will be anything but ordinary. Actually when I turned on "Gangs of New York" I thought it would just be a Period-Drama where characters wear funny clothes and talk with funny accents. I was dead wrong. Scorsese brings us a gritty, gory, and honest film about racism towards the Irish and blacks during the Civil War and the sway of Tammany Hall.

"Gangs of New York" centers around the fledgeling city during the Civil War. As the nation is torn apart by one war, New York City is torn by two; the war between the Union and Confederacy and the war between rival gangs. One gang is lead by Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio). They are a gang of Irishmen who have been long victimized in the city. Bill "The Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) leads the gang of terrorizers and racists towards the Irish and blacks. The film all comes together during epic and realistic battles between the two rival gangs.

Both Day-Lewis and DiCaprio give stellar performances as the two leading males. Amsterdam is honest and eager to fight. His actions are driven by passion and vengeance. Bill, however, is driven by his own sense of deserving, that he is superior to the blacks and Irish. There is a wonderful balance between the two actors and when they share the screen the definition of 'movie magic' becomes all to real. There is a wonderful list of supporting actors like Cameron Diaz and John C. Reilly that also make this film a Hollywood Gem.

Scorsese is the conductor who orchestrates this wonderful concerto of violence, greed, passion, murder, love, and hatred. Scorsese has proved time and time again that he is probably the most talented director in Hollywood and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. 10/10.


Great movie. The movie was about pure vengeance and the glorification of violence. No one in the world can present a movie like that with such greatness except for Martin Scorcese. The violence was almost inspirational! This movie was filled with testosterone. Leonardo DeCaprio played a convincing tough guy even though he is skinnier than most of the girls I've dated. Daniel Day Lewis stole the show as the ruthless baron of five points. He was a convincing force of a character. Beautiful Cameron Diaz kept my attention with her looks and her street-smart character.

The movie was a gangster movie, which is not original. This movie was set in the 1860's, which is very original. I have never seen a movie try to capture the crime genre during the mid-19th century. The costume and dress of the time was visually stunning. I think Scorcese has watched other directors use color schemes to make the movie visually stunning, because this is the first movie he has made that has coloring that stands out.

A lot of people say this movie was a vast exaggeration of early life in New York. The catch phrase of the movie was `America was born In the Streets'. I have to believe that life was extremely hard and violent, and many immigrants lived in slums. I could see people doing whatever necessary to survive, whether it is steal, cheat, murder. Story evolved around race riots and draft riots in New York. I watched history channel about the draft and race riots in New York, and this movie really captures the time. According to the documentary the dead rabbit riot of 1857 really killed over 100 people. This movie tries its best to put together and recapture the frustration of living in a slum. Even though the draft and race riots did not really happen at the same time. The movie combines the two.

Bowery Boys, Plug uglies, dead Rabbits some interesting names of the gangs. 9/10, but then again I am the drunken_critic.


Yep, I said it, and if you've seen it, you should understand why. The fact that a movie this good could not even take home one oscar out of ten nominations is unfathomable, and is indicative of the huge flaws that go towards deciding these awards. I understand that Gangs was an unpopular movie because of it's incredibly violent themes, but the sentimentality the Academy has towards movie-musicals is a ridiculous justification of how trite films like Chicago can win Best Picture.

And i'm not saying Gangs should have won either. In my opinion, Gangs of New York, Lord of the Rings, The Pianist, and The Hours were all far superior to Chicago in terms of artistic merit. I am even willing to concede that as a movie, Gangs is far from perfect. It doesn't always stick to the plot, and sometimes abandons the story entirely and gives a historical perspective on the era from a documentarian's point of view, sometimes good, sometimes lagging.

But I think we can all agree on the artistic elements of the movie. How could the costuming, set design, and overall artistic direction of the film go so overlooked?! Artistically, it was one of the most beuatiful things I had seen onscreen in a long time. No doubt.

I hate the Academy.


I had no idea GoNY was set in the 1800's, and so the film came as quite a shock to me. I had expected mafia-type action but instead I was treated with a fantastic yet dark world of betrayal and blood and an excellent black comedy.

The only complaint is the fact that Cameron Diaz can't act! She barely keeps her Olde American accent consistent, and looks way too thin to be authentic. And the lines they give her are laughable at best, sounding more like lines from an essay than an actual person.


Who's idea was it to give Leo Dicaprio the lead for this film? I would like to know the reasoning behind that selection. Maybe it was the same person who decided that Cameron Diaz should have been given the role of Jenny. Neither one of those two had any business being in the movie. Was New York really that horrible in the 1860s? I'm going to have to do some research to find out. That's really the only thing I got out of the film - an interest in New York during the Civil War.


Gangs of New York (2002) is such an odd film to watch in today's world. People's responses are you either like it or hate it. Personally, I thought this was such an amazing experience to view on the big screen. This movie further proves that Martin Scorsese is the best director alive, and sadly he always gets overlooked when it comes to the Oscars. Gangs of New York is a revenge tale set around 1863:

The first scene we witness is two gangs meeting in the street to determine who will be in charge of the Five Points. The Dead Rabbits are headed by Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson), a highly religious man who is tired of Irish settlers being hated and persecuted. The 'Native' Americans are headed by William Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), otherwise known as Bill the Butcher. Bill has a special hatred towards the Irish and all who are not American. Equipped with a glass eye and various knifes, the two gangs begin to slaughter each other until Vallon is killed quite cheaply by Bill. Vallon's son Amsterdam is sent away to an orphanage, where he spends the years plotting his revenge against his father's killer. He eventually comes back to the Five Points as a man (Leonardo DiCaprio) and begins to make his way back to Bill the Butcher. Along the way Amsterdam encounters his old friend Johnny (Henry Thomas) and Jenny (Cameron Diaz), a beautiful thief who eventually falls in love with Amsterdam. Bill the Butcher, completely unaware of who Amsterdam is, welcomes him into his gang, making Amsterdam his surrogate "son". Complication arises when Johnny betrays Amsterdam, thus revealing his true identity to Bill and to everyone in the Five Points. Then, Amsterdam's newly formed Dead Rabbits gang challenge Bill's Native Americans gang. This story all plays out against Boss Tweed, Tammany Hall, and at the very end, the New York Draft Riots.

The story is good, except for some instances in which we watch people run for office, which seems to not fit in with the rest of the story. The direction is always superb from Scorsese. The editing is so-so, but the acting is brilliant. Daniel Day-Lewis should have received the best actor award at the Academy Awards. He portrays a very complicated, violent Bill the Butcher. The rest of the cast do all right, except for Cameron Diaz, who was in the story to just romance Amsterdam.

The violence is very graphic and totally unsympathetic. Scorsese displays violence as it is, which is never graceful or pretty. People are shot, stabbed, blown up, and brutally killed throughout the movie. The thing to understand is that the Five Points of New York were infamous for it's violence and corruption, which was expertly shown in the movie. And I must admit, at the end in which we see Amsterdam's gang and Bill's gang prepare to do battle only to be broken up by the Draft Riots, was very disturbing. The Draft Riots are the worst riots in the history of the United States. It was a truly disturbing experience to watch it in it's bloodiest moments. The final confrontation between Amsterdam and Bill is nothing less than epic and brutal.

Violence doesn't really solve anything, except it shows who is left standing/alive. I'm glad I had the privilege to watch Gangs of New York in the theater's. I will definately buy the DVD when it comes out. Don't miss out on this overlooked film. I give this an 11 out of 10.


Firstly, I want to say I went into this film not expecting a boring drama. What I got was completely the opposite. An exciting, powerful, drama. It was excellent. The acting was great, the direction was great, and the soundtrack was absoutley the best score I have heared in a long time.

IF I do have any problems with the film, it would have been the length. It was a little too long, and one or two of the scenes that made it long were not really needed, but the rest of it was great.

It was also a challenge to watch in some places. Like a book is considered a hard read, this was a hard watch in some places, and you really have to concentrate to enjoy it, but the rewards of doing so are huge. Definitley, if you are a fan of good cinema, see it! If you don't really like these films, then it still may be worth a look!

Highly Recommended! 5 out of 5.


It's long, but it's the time that it needs to explain everything that Martin Scorzese wants to show us. The hate, the love, the bad and the good, the violence of the streets and the violence of politics, racism and a country that is beging its history. The first half of hour it's great and it's unbelieveble. Daniel Day Lewis is so good that you can understand that the bad is not totally bad and the good Amsterdam is not so 100% good. Scorzese put you in a wild society that it's an unbelieveble mirror of our times, he bring us in Five points and you believe that the plot and New york's history is there but at the end we understand that we cannot see only five points in our life but even watching around to understand what's going on in all your country. So if you think only about yourself you would die in that time, hard to say now what it will happend to you... perhaps a day something will fall from the sky and we don't know what it is and for which reason they are falling down. Good to know that Miramax and Scorzese chose Cinecittà to do the movie! So we will see if in Oscar's night it will the movie of the year. Not for me anyway!


Jingle... jingle... I've waited quite a time for this one to happen and it was a logical evolution step (getting Mickey into 3D). And it worked. Disney Australia did a great job on this one and I'm really looking forward to more animation in 3D from them.

The short stories are full of beautiful animated Christmas spirit. They have a nice humor and they tell you what really is important about Christmas (well, except they don't talk about Jesus Christ).

I think this DVD will be part of our every-year-watch-it collection for Christmas times. So I really recommend buying this DVD. I think the production value is very high and that Disney has to make two more DVDs like this to earn money with this.

Hohoho everyone, have fun.


This movie looked great from the trailers alone. It is a shame it was a direct to video release because the animation is awesome, and certainly looks like it is feature length quality. I was looking forward to seeing it, especially since this is the first time the "Fab Five" have been computer animated for a movie. Without giving too many details, the film has all your favorite Disney characters such as Mickey, Minnie, Pluto, Goofy, and his son Max, Donald and his nephews Huey, Duey, and Louie, and their Uncle Scrooge, and Daisy Duck. There are different stories involving the characters and the true meaning of Christmas. It is a wonderful movie to watch for the holidays, and it has a great story. I highly recommend it, if you are a Disney fan, or like to watch Christmas movies.


...this "movie" discredits Disney's name by revisiting classic Disney characters into a modern world and a modern computer-graphic. I Disney has decided to ride the wave of computer-graphic based animation. Toy Story (1&2) and Monster&Co were good examples of how to use modern techniques in the context of a good starting idea although I can't help thinking that art of animation the way I knew (and loved) has been certified dead by monstrous photo-realistic productions. But this...I'd say it's almost dis-educative for the young generations. I won't comment the technical side of this poorest production but the result is an awful experience that I could not even bring to an end, watching only the first 20 minutes. More than enough. Walt would have no peace if he knew what they are proposing under his name today...


What has become of the grandeur of Disney?! This is the worst CGI muck I've seen since the Hulk! I can't imagine what the Disney Corporation was thinking in approving this disgusting display of amateurish CGI animation, except to make a buck. And yet, they went on and released it?!

I'm virtually in shock that this movie has received a 7.1 (for now) rating here at IMDb, making it the most over-rated piece of detritus in the Disney vaults. I must say it is THE single worst Disney presentation I've ever seen. I'd come to expect bad animation and horribly neglectful illustrations from Disney sequels, but this was no sequel; it was a feature film!

We saw what could be done through CGI with Monsters, Inc., A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo, etc. This is more the quality I would have expected at the very beginning of the CGI age, not presently.

I was very disappointed with this attempt, and would admonish Disney to do better next time!

It rates a 1.3/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Probably not as heartwarming and memorable as the first film ("Mickey's Once Upon A Christmas"), this one is also fun, entertaining and amusing (perhaps even more amusing than the last one)! Unfortunately the stories aren't as well-planned as they could be, with unnecessarily mean characters (even Louie, Douie and Huey are a bit meaner than usual) and unnecessary grumpiness.

Like the last film, this has a few stories about Mickey and his friends at Yuletide. This is computer animated and also unlike the first film, has more stories.

The first story is about Daisy and Minnie dancing on ice and both becoming cross with each other. Beautiful skating and all, but this has too harmless and aggressive a plot for a normal enjoyment, unless you are a tiny kid who thinks violence and arguing is all right, or a parent who wants their child to see what they could be like. Personal rating: 5 and a half out of ten.

The second story has Douie, Huey and Louie going to where Santa lives to try and be on his list so they can get presents. This one is the most fast paced and exciting and not all that bad either. The CGI used in this one to portray many different things is very well done and would probably not be done nearly as well in cartoon. Huey, Douie and Louie are incredibly naughty as well, but they usually are anyway. Personal rating: 7.

The third story is the shortest, but is surprisingly well done. Max, with his girlfriend, are going to go round to his house with Goofy and Goofy, being his goofy self, will be likely to still play the goof. The background song is entertaining and well-sung and this story is also funny, which is "refreshing". Unfortunately we mainly see Max as a grumpy teenager, which is not so refreshing. A good way to describe this: A clean glass of lovely cold water, with quite a large dob of spit added to it. Personal rating: 6.

The fourth story is mainly about the hot chocolate-loving Donald and because of this obsession he has no cares whatsoever. This story is luckily funny and entertaining, with well-used CGI yet again. **SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD** However, the change in Donald is a wee bit too quick, lowering down the quality of this part of the film. **SPOILERS OVER**. Personal rating: 7.

The fifth story is probably the most well-done, despite being slightly sad and depressing. Pluto knocks over all of Mickey's Christmas decorations by accident and is sent to his doghouse. Thinking that Mickey no longer loves him, Pluto runs away. A sweet and especially amusing story, the most heartwarming of the lot. Personal rating: 8.

Recommended to Mickey Mouse fans and CGI likers. Enjoy "Mickey's Twice Upon A Christmas"! :-)


I normally dislike CG animation. Its graphical perfection makes it too artificial for me. "Mickey's Twice Upon a Christmas," however, is perfectly suited for CG animation. There is a colorful vibrancy and liveliness to it that makes it much more festive. Consider the sad alternative: second rate hand-drawn animation rivaling that of Saturday morning cartoons. That being said, the animation here is top-notch. Disney is no-doubt attempting to flex its CGI muscle as it transitions away from hand-drawn animation (also, see the theme park commercials, Mickey's Philharmagic, etc.). Also, it should be noted that comparing the quality of this animation with that of a big budget Pixar movie is extremely ignorant. CG animation has its own costs and it would be poor budgeting to spend that much on a video feature. Regardless, it does not suffer from the lack of that detailed a polish.

The stories themselves are entertaining, and there is a surprising amount of wit and imaginative storytelling written into the script. My only complaint is that it would be nice for Disney to create a full feature Mickey Mouse film. Short stories work fine, but it ends and starts again too soon to create any audience involvement.


I know the 3-D/CGI worshippers will dislike my heresy, but if ever there was a place NOT to use CGI, this is it. Most of these characters have been around for almost 75 years in their hand-drawn form, and that's what made them special. There was no need to re-make our favorites into what looks like plastic McDonald's toys, and these should be stuffed back into the bag (Santa's?). I'm glad I finally found a place to rent a copy rather than buying one, and it's obvious that the rental houses agree with my assessment, as I had to check on Netflix, two Blockbusters, and one Hollywood video before I could find a lone copy at a third Blockbuster. Please Disney, don't fix what ain't broke.


Absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen. I rented it for my family because the guy at the video store recommended it. He said it was such a good film. I don't know what he was thinking. Normally, when a movie is bad, we turn it off, but this one we watched just so we could tell everyone how bad it was. I recommend that you waste your time to watch it.


If you're thinking about renting this flick, you might as well go for the trifecta and rent Gigli & Glitter as well. The acting is beyond bad. Laughable is a better term. However, go rent it anyway because no one will ever believe how bad this movie is unless they see it for themselves.


I actually rented this movie years and years ago thinking it might be good. Wrong! The acting, direction, plot, story, dialog, cinematography, etc. etc. were horrible. From then on it went down. I'm trying to remember some of the plot so as to give a summary, but there's not much worth remembering. The "crippled" boy doesn't always remember which leg is crippled, and it's pretty evident that the actors don't remember the plot (if it really had one).

The only redeeming part of this movie is that it's so bad it's laughable, which is why I rated it a "2" instead of a "1." I'm surprised Mystery Science Theater didn't find it.

Only waste your money on it as a joke. I actually did hunt it down to buy as a joke for my husband. We tried to watch it again, but failed.


My childhood memory puts this movie at a 10! I will admit I have not yet watched this movie as an adult/parent.

I did however watch this movie as a kid, and it affected my life. This was a great movie for a low budget film in the 80's.

As a kid I did not completely understand the plot other than a young disabled boy who befriends a man who everyone else hates.

It's basically a story about the harsh judgments mocking Jesus went through, retold in modern day times through the eyes of a young boy.

The simple act of watching this movie as a child made me hate the way people were treated and discriminated against simple because they were different. It also put into perspective the pain and persecution Jesus went through. It really did change the way I looked and the way I treated people different than me.

Now if your judging this movie by the time and money spent on special effects, A+ actors, popularity, and publicization than you probably wont like it. But the warm and sad feelings I felt watching this movie as a young boy stuck with me my whole life. And I can not speak for the rest of the movie watching world, but to me a good movie evokes feelings: tears, anger, fear and love. The more a movie leaves you thinking or feeling at the end or even the way it changes the way you look at life or things in general is a great movie. Bottom line as a young mature boy I LOVED THIS MOVIE. As an adult? Yet to be determined.


My daughter asked me yesterday what my favorite or the best movie I ever saw was. I was torn among Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia (Orrence, Orrence) and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (see - I'm not too highbrow!)

She then asked about the worst movie, a question I had never thought about and Emanon came, no, leapt to mind. I only remember it because it's "No Name" backwards, and I have the strange habit of reading everything backwards and forwards, spoiling the movie from the outset. How corny. Worst back-word since I read a bad horror story about the mysterious Count Alucard - oh, brother!

I don't know why I remembered this as the worst. I usually love the one-star stuff everyone hates, but this was so shockingly bad in every way, I remember feeling sorry for the kid actor who was in it. I jumped on IMDb just to see if anyone else had that same recall.

Well - at least I remembered the title after 15 years... Sounds like a drug rehab center, though.


I actually didn't expect this film to very funny, as the cover mostly made it look like more of an action movie - but as it turns out it was very very funny. Great actors, great story and plot twists everywhere! It reminded a bit of "Two Days In L.A." but this one was far better. Most comedies nowadays have enough good jokes in them to last about ten minutes, but John Landis proves that movies like this still can be made.


With some wonderful names attached to this film you would expect to see some great acting... no disappointment there. All the main cast were superb in their roles.

So why am I not enthusing over this film. There seemed to be something just slightly off key with the humour. It had all the trappings of being exceptional but, perhaps it went a little too far overboard and became a little confusing - in the 'why did the Director want to do that?' sense of the word.

The highs: Michael Biehn as the inept, would-be-killer, Bill, stuck in the closet with panicking Billy Zane's Insurance salesman and Bill's 'flatulent' best buddy.

Dan Ackroyd in a wonderful deadpan role as 'Bob'.

The Lows: The script - it was a little too flat and I am amazed the actors did such a great job given some of the lines they had to work with.


I've seen this film this evening with my wife and I'm very perplexed about it. I think John Landis is near a genius - The Blues Brothers are there to show it - but this is a tired film with some great gags. The cast of characters is very good and Dan (Aykroyd, obviously) play a splendid cameo but I'm not satisfied at all. I understand that directors are not always thinking about a masterpiece but some more diligence would be appreciated. However - Landis is Landis - your money and your time will be well spent.


What the hell has happened to John Landis? Not that he was ever a genius behind the camera, but he did make some genuinely entertaining and original films. `Susan's Plan', however, isn't one of them. The reason I watched this was for the cast, which boasts many talented performers, but I felt bad for them by the end, which is a slapdash mess. The film starts off promisingly enough, but much like the titular `Plan', this movie falls apart by the third act.

One of the rules of this site discourages blowing the ends of movies, and I'll respect that, but be prepared for a weak, very predictable conclusion. This film is also chockablock with dream sequences, which were a forgivable indulgence in `An American Werewolf in London', but in this seemed like a copout filmic device for audience misdirection that mainly seemed included to pad out a very thin script to feature length. It's also got plenty of gratuitous female nudity, which is pleasant to look at, but kind of made me feel bad for the actresses, especially Lara Flynn Boyle. Time for her to get a new agent. In this case I think the actresses were exploited, but hey, it's a Landis movie.

Maybe an adequately diverting watch on cable if you're laid low by the flu or something, but if you're feeling fine, watch a good movie or go out and enjoy your life. Get some fresh air. Ninety minutes could be better spent doing something other than becoming embroiled in `Susan's Plan'.


In most of the comments I've seen, haven't seen any comments on Adrian Paul's performance. I happen to be a rather big fan of his and am trying to be patient about when I will be able to see the movie. I have no idea of when it goes to video and if the networks are going to air it, but I am sure everyone on the film did a bang up job, and I mean everyone, including the grips and other BEHIND the scene peoples.


With the introductory titles at the beginning of the movie, one can sense that this film is in big trouble. After all, how much emphasis should a palm tree receive - shot and reshot via redundant closeups and pull backs? The first set of scenes seems to set the tenor of the movie and is a grand hint that what follows has the potential of being awful. Cheesy sets, lousy dialogue, poor editing - all worthy of a ninth grade film buff student in his first big homework assignment. The framing of the shots almost seem to be out of "How to Make a Movie 101," with the subsequent movie having a very cook booked feeling or how to make a movie by the numbers.

Somewhere about the 30 minute mark, it becomes exceedingly difficult to suppress the thought that the producer, director, and writer, John Landis, should not be taken outside and shot. It is amazing how he can take a more than capable cast and have most of them looking like low IQ dimwits. The movie's only saving grace is that it is highly uneven, meaning that there is something there to almost balance out its dreadfulness, but not quite. That factor is Dan Aykroyd whose reputation as a comedian proceeds him and without that awareness, the movie would be a complete failure. As the character, Bob, Akyroyd does his version of Tom Hanks in "Road to Perdition" - a deadly serious killer whose lack of on screen humor makes him very funny.

The basic plot of the movie is contained within its title, "Dying to Get Rich! --- Susan's Plan," and revolves around Susan, played by Nastassja Kinski, scheming to get rid of her ex-husband to collect his insurance money. Characterizing the film as a "black comedy" cannot mask its gross deficiencies. It is painful to watch an actress of Nastassja's caliber having to mouth some of the lines that are liberally interspersed with a four letter word, starting with "f" and ending in "k." This must be a Guinness world record for Nastassja uttering the "f" word in any of her movies. It is my fervent hope that Nastassja will never have to attend a film festival of her works and have to provide commentary on a frame to frame basis for this movie.

Because this movie is like a sitting duck, it is too easy to blast it out of the water. One scene has the major participants openly discussing the murder in a crowded, public restaurant! The awkwardness and stiffness of some of the scenes should constitute a nice lesson on how-not-to-make a movie. This is one movie that not even Nastassja can escape unscathed as she leads her merry band of idiots down a path of ruin.


I really wanted to love this movie. It had a great cast and John Landis

! But This is not a Landis movie, just some sub-par Tarantino-like

story, lazily executed, where annoying nightmares takes up the role of

the disjointed-time sequences you find in any Tarantino wanabee (And

there are already too many of 'em). It seems that the cast and Landis

were so happy to work together that they didn't care about the end

product. Unfortunately, that's what we viewers have to endure. It's not

THAt bad and the acting is really energetic, but it all seems wasted.

Now, if Mr Joe Dante would just give us another of his zany, wonderful

movies, I'd be a happy P


I disagree with Bill. I thought this documentary was moving and did exactly what it set out to do, which was show the American public that inmates are not evil or mistakes or whatever else it is that we make them out to be. We watched this documentary in one of my classes for school, and by the end, you could see that these students were moved. This is an excellent documentary and it puts inmates in a light that is not usually shown in the media. While the subject matter is intense, I think it is a worthwhile documentary to watch. Unfortunately it is difficult to find or rent without buying it off the PBS website. I know that there are women out there who are in prison and are considered "a danger to society" but I also think that there are women who deserve another chance. These women helped show me this, they helped to open my eyes.


I've done some work in prisons, so I had an intellectual understanding that prisons are a world unto themselves, with their own rules and consequences. This documentary went far beyond that, showing instead the women inside the prison sentences.

While IMDb lists Hollywood "names" as the stars of this picture, the real stars are the inmates themselves, who respond to every request that Eve Ensler makes that they go deeper or look more closely at what they've done -- but more importantly, *who they are.*

The greatest thing I gained from seeing this was a glimpse of the women who live inside and around the crimes. While only a starting point, it's the beginning of understanding that any of us is capable of criminal acts. But more than that, this film asks, "Then what??" As is said several times by one of the women prisoners, "life goes on." *How* does life go on? How do you live with it 6 months down the road, 6 years, 15 years? How does your perception of life and self change as you fill the hours to pass one more day, then another?

This was a fascinating, poignant, moving film. The biggest drawback was the camera's/editor's love affair with Glenn Close. I agree with other reviewers that the scenes with the actresses doing beginning read-throughs were somewhat distracting, but the incessant focus on Close was downright irritating.

I also thought the contrast between the inmates' readings and the actresses' readings of the same words was highly intriguing. Most of the inmates are monotone, like most people are when reading. The actresses seem almost over the top in comparison, but I'll bet it made a powerhouse performance when experienced live. If nothing else, this would be a good documentary for actors to see in order to witness the transformation of script -- plus to find some incredibly moving monologues!

This is one I'll think about for a long time. I'm glad I saw it. In some small way, it has changed me.


I thought this film was excellent. I think it was great for Eve Ensler to allow and encourage these women to openly express themselves in a non-violent, positive and honest way. The only woman whom I found to be a total phony was Pamela Smart. She is the infamous New Hampshire seductress husband killer who got her teen lover to do her dirty work for her. When she read she took no responsibility for her actions. She told the same story she's been offering up for the last 14 years. "It was not my fault, i'm innocent, it was my co-defendants". Does this sound familiar.

The thing I thought was really cool about it was that Eve Ensler, my favorite female playwright was the workshop leader. Also, another great thing was that actors, Glenn Close, Rosie Perez, Marisa Tomei, Maryalice and Hazelle Goodman gave excellent Broadway like performances. Not only did I like their performances but I also liked the discussion sessions in-between.

I thought that the women being able to express themselves this way was great. The reason I think this is because most of them have not done many positive things in their in lives but this is one that they have done. I thought the "Puppy Behind Bars" program was cool. It must be nice to train these guard dogs for needy people and give back.

I give this movie a 10 stars out of 10. I liked it so much that I bought my own DVD of it. I think the interview with Eve Ensler and Judith Katz was very cool and informing. I also like the full-length performances by the featured actors, because although I like hearing excerpts of things, I do like to hear them in whole too. "Thanks, Eve Ensler".


It is perhaps inevitable that Broken News will be compared to The Day Today. Although The Day Today is probably the funnier of the two shows, I don't feel that this means Broken News should be written off as a waste of time. Both shows may be satirising the same subject, but they choose different ways to do it. Broken News perhaps stays closer to the real thing while The Day Today chooses to get a bit more surreal with the stories they report. Despite the similarity between the two shows, I don't get the feeling that Broken News is trying to copy The Day Today.

The back of the DVD box says the show satirises "the on-screen world of rolling news where there's too much airtime and not enough news to go around". That's a pretty accurate summary of the show and some of it is cringingly familiar. The recognisability of it makes it even funnier, especially when you then go back and watch the real news and see those things happening there. Some of the parody is actually pretty close to reality.

The show holds up to repeat viewing quite well. Many of the jokes are quite subtle and it's easy for them to slip past you the first time. There are also the ticker-tape messages scrolling across the bottom of the screen which you tend not to read the first time you watch an episode. I found these particularly funny in the "hijack" episode (which is also my favourite episode).

The large cast did help to lend an air of reality to the whole thing and virtually all of them were convincing. Having real Americans playing the American newscasters was also a nice touch which could have easily been overlooked.

My only complaint was that the same jokes did get used in several episodes. In some cases this worked well, but in other cases I did feel like hitting fast-forward. However, the "channel hopping" format of the show actually works in its favour here as it helps segments appear longer than they really are without drawing a joke out for too long.

If the BBC commission a second series, I hope they add more writers. I think there's certainly scope for more, although the stories would probably be more surreal in order to avoid going over too much of the same material from the first series.