One thing I can definitely say for Scorsese in this film, is that he knows how to START! GANGS OF NEW YORK has one of the best opening scenes of a movie that I've seen. It's up there with the likes of THE DARK KNIGHT and THE GREATEST SHOWMAN in terms of a best opening scene. It both grips and sets the tone of the entire movie: muscular, stoic and violent with the epic 'Priest' Vallon (Liam Neeson) marching to war with his Irish gang of street warriors "The Dead Rabbits" and his young son Amsterdam (Cian McCormack) to do battle with the vicious Bill "The Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his racist army of American "Natives". I must say I found this film really quotable as well and now, every time I cut myself shaving (accidentally), I find myself repeating the line "No Son! Never! The Blood Stays On The Blade!" The film REALLY gets off to a great start with this opening scene that leads up to a brutally bloody battle for the Five Points. It's in this first part, that the movie is at its strongest, but as the film progresses with Amsterdam as a grown man (Leonardo DiCaprio) returning to the Five Points for revenge on "The Butcher" who slew his father, that the film's structure and pace begins to weaken. The violent, epic events of the beginning, are replaced with duller, less-gripping ones and a truly disappointing and underwhelming finale, that leaves you a little cross that you wasted all that time waiting for the clash of the titans that never came! It does thrill at some points with the odd "Butcher" assassination attempt and the hero (DiCaprio) coming about as close to death as a hero has ever come in movie history. Scorsese also (in my opinion) delivers a really authentic and thorough look into 19th century life in the Five Points. Everything from the props, to the buildings, to the clothes is spot-on for detail and highly authentic. The period drama side of things is faultless with the film capturing all the attitudes and feelings of the period and introducing us to a fairly unknown side of American history (Gangs in the Five Points and the Draft Riots). This is all fine but it's safe to say that the film is carried by its cast and I have chosen the 3 standouts and the 1 absolutely awful performance: Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz and Jim Broadbent. DiCaprio is (as usual) convincing, as Amsterdam despite the muddled accent and brings real emotion and passion to the role, unfortunately the character (on a whole) is rather bland and very dull. There's nothing exciting about him as a character, even though DiCaprio does his best in the role. Now, on to Daniel Day-Lewis as "The Butcher" Bill. This film (like THE DARK KNIGHT) is a good example of a supporting actor TOTALLY stealing the show. Day-Lewis delivers (in my opinion) one of the best performances of his career as Bill. Like Heath Ledger's Joker there are two, brilliantly-acted sides to his antagonist. On one hand he's a vicious, psychotic, racist, cowardly, backstabbing brute, but, on the other hand, he's a true patriot and a fairly "honourable man". Both sides to Bill's personality are played brilliantly and Lewis's sudden changes in character (see the "Poor Little Rabbit" scene) are frankly awesome! Cameron Diaz was also very convincing as the film's main heroine Jenny Everdeane. Diaz adds dome real spice to this role and (in my opinion) saves the character from being lost among so many forgettable screen damsels. She's feisty and fun but also caring and soft-spoken. Diaz certainly proves what a versatile and strong actress she is. Then, there is the one performance that both annoys and puzzles me: Jim Broadbent as Boss Tweed. I simply don't know what Scorsese was thinking in casting Broadbent in the role. Broadbent is awful, totally wooden and unrealistic. He READS the part, and it baffles me how he got this part among such a stellar cast in the first place. However, along with the likes of Brendan Gleeson and John C. Reilly the cast, for the most part, uplifted the rather dull 3/4s of the film and made it a slightly more enjoyable ride.However, the final quarter of the film was what REALLY disappointed me. The problem is: Scorsese spends far too much on time on Amsterdam's saga of "do I"-"don't I" and the complete inessentials of the plot so that, as he crams in 'Monk' McGinn (Gleeson) running for sheriff, the Draft Riots and another Battle for the Five Points, the film becomes convoluted and terribly rushed. Things certainly needed to be trimmed down here, (I think) Scorsese just needed to synchronise the conclusion better. The conclusion itself was (as I've said) a true disappointment and doesn't deliver the outcome you hoped for (or watched the rest of the movie for). Certainly mixed goods. The acting, beginning and script= goods. Bad= plot, pace and finale. Scorsese can do better and I was left thinking the film could have been better. Much better...

Atr first it was confusing to follow along but twenty minutes in I managed to sort of understand the storyline.It was interesting and I soon found out why the movie is rated R. I never heard of anything about the Five Points nor did I realize how violent people reacted to draft.

It can be inferred that Gangs of New York is a very violent movie because it takes place during the civil war. There was a lot of disunity, and many northerners were not willing to be drafted to help fight for black equality. The polt did jump around a bit, making it slightly hard to follow but the blood, gore, and romance keeps the audience engaged in the film. The love hate relationship between Amsterdam and Jenny helped further establish their characters and the inner conflict they possessed within themselves. Flashbacks were a key point in the movie as they helped the viewer get an idea of what characters were like from the near beginning of their life. Though some of the more bloody scenes deemed to be unrealistic, the characters were also portrayed well by their actors.

"America was forged in the streets". This quote belongs to one of the main character in the film looks like a good headline to sum up Gangs of New York. If you add up tons of blood, sharp and acute dialogues here and there, a winding and appealing plot, a young hero played by then teen idol Leonardo Di Caprio, a great and unforgettable antihero played by the not less great Daniel Day Lewis whose character is driven as much by blood as it is by a twisted sense of honour and, of course, the legendary expertise behind thee cameras of Martin Scorsese what you get is a good film. I wouldn't go as far as to say this movie is one of his great works (that spot belongs to The Goodfellas or Taxi Driver). but it'll be one who will be part of our memories (at least, I hope so).It tells the story of New York and, by extension, America between 1846- 1862. Popular belief holds the notion that politics, that is, Democracy "create" American. This is challenged is the film by showing us a scenario where ruthless violence, irrational behaviour, daily corruption, disrespect for Democracy itself with a bunch of characters talking openly of rigging elections, corruption is as part of people's lives as it is breathing. At the heart of it all one place stands out over the rest: Five Points. A place where Gangs made up or rugged, ragged, blood- thirsty Americans, Irisman...often meet up to kill each other in a frenzy of violence, slashing, noses and ears cut off from bodies that one would think more fitting to the Middle Ages. All the plot lines unfolds against a backdrop of massive immigration to America (Irish, but also Chinese). and the street riots against the 1862 draft.Is the current American democracy any better than the one we get to explore in Gangs of New York? One would certainly like to think so. Even whit all its flaws, the arrival of Donald Trump and so on and so forth, things have undoubtedly got better. Do you agree?