Ok, ok... I'm from Portugal, which means I'm not going to see this movie until March or something. And I've been reading some mixed reviews about it. Some rave, some get disappointed. I wanted to know about the fans opinions... Is it any good (note that I'll see it anyway)
Damn Damn Damn, haven't seen the same topic on the other section of this. Sorry sorry sorry
Damn, I thought I had my first redirect there for a sec. :x
Ooooooohhhhhh..... I saw it in time. eheh... It's just that I'm still warming up on this new great site... weeeeeeee :lol:
Is it me or was it totally obvious where scorsese was forced to cut scenes for time. For instance, the first fight scene, it had a gread build up then it goes into this corny strobe effect then this very corny new age rock music shit. This didnt feel like a scorsese moment at all, rather a montage of a once terrific scene.
Next is the whole intercutting of Amsterdam coming back and Bill the Butcher talking to Tweed. Felt a little akward.
But for all those negative things there was about 10 positive things. The end was very powerful and struck a chord with me. I dunno what it was. Well done.
I have a friend who works in the film industry that says Gangs' original running time was about 3 hours and 40 minutes, or something along those lines, and Miramax made him cut it. So you probably noticed right.
I would think that a director like Scorsese would be entitled to final cut..that's tragic to endless degrees....i hope that one day the 3 hours and 40 minutes version sees the light of day.
Scorsese doesnt believe in directors cuts, he says what you see in the theatres is what you get. Damnit
HAh...you would think a studio making him chop off what, an hour and 40 minutes would make him change his mind about that.
anyone else see the weird color changes midway through a couple of scenes??? i thought it was quite strange.
Can we keep blaming everything we don't like about the film on its brush with corporate Miramax. I think if Scorsese wasn't happy with the cut of the film that is in theaters, it wouldn't have been released until it was the cut he wanted. Wasn't that why it had been 'coming soon' for about 2 years before it was finally released?
As for my opinion of the film, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I loved the opening battle (especially the strobe effect) and the end. I also thought Daniel Day-Lewis was incredible. I did think the character flashbacks were a little out of place, though.
uh
i dunno bout that strobe effect, pretty shitty if you ask me.
so did anyone else get the weird color changes in the middle of a couple scenes???
Quote from: xerxesso did anyone else get the weird color changes in the middle of a couple scenes???
i think i know what you mean. that happened to me during jeepers creepers too. im not sure about this but i was told that this is due to the film being printed on different stocks. the print(s) thats playing in the theatre, not from when it was originally shot.
Quote from: cecil b. demented
i think i know what you mean. that happened to me during jeepers creepers too. im not sure about this but i was told that this is due to the film being printed on different stocks. the print(s) thats playing in the theatre, not from when it was originally shot.
thats what i thought at first, but i talked to a few friends who saw it, and they noticed it too.
Quote from: xerxesQuote from: cecil b. demented
thats what i thought at first, but i talked to a few friends who saw it, and they noticed it too.
from different theatres and the color changes happen at the same spots in the movie?
thats weird.
Quote from: bonanzatazI have a friend who works in the film industry that says Gangs' original running time was about 3 hours and 40 minutes, or something along those lines, and Miramax made him cut it.
This 3 hr. 40 cut was only a rough assembly cut. It was not Scorsese's cut or intended as a release cut. I think Scorsese's final was closer to three hours before Harvey "Scissorhands" Weinstein "influenced" him.
I really liked the first 1½ hours or so, but then it all started to get mixed up. I've always thought Scorsese was great a great storyteller. So I guess either the script-writer or the editor fucked it up. It's a real shame because this film really had potential. :cry:
........Daniel Day-Lewis was incredible. Almost too good!
I highly doubt it was the editor; she's always on the ball. I would blame this on the screenplay itself.. Scorsese did the best he could and it was magnificent.
Saw this again last night. I have to disagree, I don't believe anything was muddled or the story lost focus halfway through. It wasn't simply a period piece Death Wish, the revenge story was informed by the political climate and setting, which was the point of the movie, I think.
Perhaps it was the best movie I saw in 2002. Can I go back and change my xixax award winners votes?
Quote from: mrsimonrayCan ANYONE explain why Scorsese's commentary is "continued" on disc 2. Please don't tell me that the film goes over two discs!!!
:shock:
Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York will arrive in the ultimate failure to win Oscars edition. While the film may not have won at everyone's favorite fashion show this disc will give fans of this great film some great features including commentary by Mr. Scorsese, five featurettes on the making of the film as well as the Discover Channel Special "Uncovering the real Gangs of New York." The U2 music video for "The hands that built America" and the theatrical trailer in widescreen round out the features for the second disc.
The film is so long in fact that to include the 2.35:1 WS anamorphic transfer as well as Dolby 5.1 and DTS tracks it will be split over the two discs.
THE MOVIE OVER TWO DISKS????!!!!!!!
Why?Why?Why?Why????
I'd pay an extra ten bucks a disc for some new technology so they wouldn't have to do this.
On the plus side, nice to see a Scorsese commentary for a change.
Quote from: cecil b. dementedQuote from: xerxesso did anyone else get the weird color changes in the middle of a couple scenes???
i think i know what you mean. that happened to me during jeepers creepers too. im not sure about this but i was told that this is due to the film being printed on different stocks. the print(s) thats playing in the theatre, not from when it was originally shot.
Die...It's a sin to even mention a movie like Jeepers Creepers in the same sentence as a Scorsese film!!!
The color changed at both theaters I saw it at. Its definitely a lab mistake...there are always very minute changes from reel to reel, or when the lab makes a hot splice, but they're usually undetectable. And I'm surprised that the problem was so widespread in this case.
Quote from: Chest_RockwellDie...It's a sin to even mention a movie like Jeepers Creepers in the same sentence as a Scorsese film!!!
to me jeepers creepers was a better film than gangs. hows that for a "sin?"
Quote from: cecil b. dementedQuote from: Chest_RockwellDie...It's a sin to even mention a movie like Jeepers Creepers in the same sentence as a Scorsese film!!!
to me jeepers creepers was a better film than gangs. hows that for a "sin?"
jeepers creepers is the ONLY film in my life, that I walked out of the theater BEFORE the credits rolled.
That's the only one? You have more tolerance than I do. Then again, you probably don't actually go see as many bad movies as I do...thus fewer chance to walk out.
Quote from: GhostboyThat's the only one? You have more tolerance than I do. Then again, you probably don't actually go see as many bad movies as I do...thus fewer chance to walk out.
yea, ive become cautious about seeing films in the theater. i think i have a good "peice of shit" radar. someone dragged me to see jeepers creepers, otherwise i wouldnt have seen it.
what films have you walked out on?
Well, I still remember the very first one...Mortal Kombat 2. Most recently...The Real Cancun (only took ten minutes!). I've walked out of quite a few...some of the ones that stick out in my head are Wild Things, and (the only 'art' film in the bunch) Human Traffic. Most of them, like Nutty Professor 2 and Loser (both in the same day) are no brainers. I don't know why I bothered to watch them in the first place. The nice thing about being an unpaid member of the press is that you can see the damn things for free, but not get penalized for leaving early. But I've still left quite a few that I've paid for, too.
kung pow was the only one. oh yeah, i remember i was getting pretty restless during the insider and left that, after having left the straight story because my seat was front row all the way to the left. two movies in a row, dangit!
Quote from: cecil b. dementedto me jeepers creepers was a better film than gangs. hows that for a "sin?"
That's Commandment Number 11: Thou shall not give any praise of any sort to Jeepers Creepers. God, what an awful piece of shit. On my list for the second worst horror movie behind Blair Witch 2. The characters and story were so stupid. Although the trailer for the sequel looks promising.
shit, i didnt know jeepers was so hated. i thought it was actually okay. not "good" but just "okay"
Quote from: cecil b. dementedshit, i didnt know jeepers was so hated. i thought it was actually okay. not "good" but just "okay"
And you didn't even mention it in the same sentence as anything related to Scorsese like the guy said you did anyway.
I used to walk in and out of movies all weekend back in Jr High, where the purpose of going to the movies wasnt to actually see a movie.
Quote from: SoNowThenTHE MOVIE OVER TWO DISKS????!!!!!!!
Why?Why?Why?Why????
I'd pay an extra ten bucks a disc for some new technology so they wouldn't have to do this.
On the plus side, nice to see a Scorsese commentary for a change.
amen. i love hearing scorsese speak. have you heard the last tempation criterion commentary -- as far as i know, this is the only commentary by marty released to this date-- is this true? if not, does anyone know any other of his films that have commentary? when the fuck is the scorsese box set going to drop?
Quote from: cowboykurtishave you heard the last tempation criterion commentary -- as far as i know, this is the only commentary by marty released to this date-- is this true? if not, does anyone know any other of his films that have commentary? when the fuck is the scorsese box set going to drop?
On laserdisc:
Taxi Driver Criterion
Raging Bull Criterion
New York, New York
Tales Of Hoffman Criterion
DVD:
Last Temptation Criterion
Black Narcissus Criterion
Last Waltz
Red Shoes Criterion
Life Of Colonel Blimp Criterion
No word on the Scorsese Box set. Word is that the GoodFellas Spec. Ed. will be out around Christmas.
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: cowboykurtishave you heard the last tempation criterion commentary -- as far as i know, this is the only commentary by marty released to this date-- is this true? if not, does anyone know any other of his films that have commentary? when the fuck is the scorsese box set going to drop?
On laserdisc:
Taxi Driver Criterion
Raging Bull Criterion
New York, New York
Tales Of Hoffman Criterion
.
id give my right leg to have criterion release those films on dvd -- however, im not holding my breath.
how is the red shoes disc? i love micheal powell -- peeping tom is wonderful, so is black narcissus -- haven'tseen red sheos however -- scorsese seems to rave about it....i think i need to make a purchase
Quote from: cowboykurtishow is the red shoes disc? i love micheal powell -- peeping tom is wonderful, so is black narcissus -- haven'tseen red sheos however -- scorsese seems to rave about it....i think i need to make a purchase
Red Shoes is worth a purchase. The disc is packed with great extras. Scorsese even contributed some of his personal memorabilia. And it's an excellent film too.
Red Shoes may be my favorite Powell film. It's a toss up between that and Peeping Tom.
Quote from: xerxesso did anyone else get the weird color changes in the middle of a couple scenes???
Hehe...and I just thought it was our dollar theatre.
Regardless, I loved the movie. Good stuff.
Sorry for my lack of essayness. I'm going to go watch A Nightmare on Elm Street with my mom. She's never seen it. She tried watching it when she was younger and couldn't sit through the first five minutes due to fear. Hehe...hope she gets a visit from Freddy like I did back in my day.
Disc review from DVDFile:
The screen-specific audio commentary from Martin Scorsese was the real source of interest for me, as my entire emotional reaction to the film was largely predicated on why Scorsese wanted to make this particular labor of love in the first place, as well as its tumultuous journey to the screen. And while Scorsese makes for a wonderful guide through the rigors of production, those expecting lots of grist will be disappointed. Everything seems peachy-keen and surprisingly sedate. Scorsese's enthusiasm shines through, don't get me wrong, but it seems like many of the much-buzzed about controversies that held up the film for so long are glossed over in favor of explanations of historical and dramatic motivations. Scorsese is a great commentator - to listen to this commentary even without watching the film first is worthy of a rental - but I can't help but think it may have been toned down. (Note that this is a full-length commentary, split across two discs along with the feature.)
Entire review here. (http://www.dvdfile.com/software/review/dvd-video_6/gangsofnewyork.html)
Y'know what confuses me? I read an interview where Scorsese said there'd be something like 30 minutes of deleted scenes included as an extra, yet it's not there.
Are they planning on releasing a Special Edition in the future?
what i don't get, is that how is marty not broke now? didn't he put in his own cash cos it was so overbudget?
this didn't make any (real) money as far as i know.
Quote from: Pdidn't he put in his own cash cos it was so overbudget?
I dunno about that. I know Tom Cruise paid for the church set, that's why it's named St. Thomas.
Quote from: MacGuffinI know Tom Cruise paid for the church set, that's why it's named St. Thomas.
i did not know that.
he can afford it tho. like pfft.
Cruise did not pay for it. He guilted Weinstien into paying for it while he was taking a tour of the set.
Quote from: mogwaiWhat's wrong by not calling it St. Tom? Or St. Mackey?
St. Maverick.
i know marty and leo took significant pay cuts to get the movie made. in the latest scorsese interviews in regards to his upcoming projects he often says "I need to get paid." so yea, maybe he is hurting financially. its a sad sad day in hollywood when martin scorsese needs a paycheck while justin timberlake could buy a small third world country.
boxoffice guru has domestic and worldwide box office results for gangs at 190.3 mill, so it has made money. (rumored est. budget was at 100-120m if im not mistaken) it should do even better with upcoming video rentals and dvd sales.
Quote from: ©bradi know marty and leo took significant pay cuts to get the movie made. in the latest scorsese interviews in regards to his upcoming projects he often says "I need to get paid." so yea, maybe he is hurting financially. its a sad sad day in hollywood when martin scorsese needs a paycheck while justin timberlake could buy a small third world country.
boxoffice guru has domestic and worldwide box office results for gangs at 190.3 mill, so it has made money. (rumored est. budget was at 100-120m if im not mistaken) it should do even better with upcoming video rentals and dvd sales.
Budget was around 100m plus an est. 35m for marketing, that gives you a profit of almost 70m, not bad at all (IMO).
wait, mini-revelation. maybe they should have called Gangs Of New York, "Kill Bill"?
i just saw this for the first time and i thought it was good. I really liked the very end and i loved the end credits. not the best of 2002 but probably one of the best. And yes Day-Lewis deserved the oscar.
Tom Cruise paid for the church set in Gangs of New York? Why?
How'd you find that out, Mac?
Quote from: SoNowThenHow'd you find that out, Mac?
I remember (wrongly as Derek pointed out) reading it in Premiere Magazine and Entertainment Weekly:
You might say the problems plaguing Martin Scorsese's long-delayed Miramax epic ''Gangs of New York'' began the day Tom Cruise strolled onto the set. In August 2000, the actor had been with Miramax honcho Harvey Weinstein in Madrid for ''The Others,'' which Cruise was producing for his then wife, Nicole Kidman. After Cruise and Weinstein flew to Rome to surprise the star's ''Color of Money'' director on the Gangs set, Scorsese and production designer Dante Ferretti (who worked on Cruise's ''Interview With the Vampire'') started complaining that Weinstein wouldn't let them build a church -- yes, a church -- for a key scene. At that point, the building was only a two-sided facade.
Scorsese and Ferretti's dream? To be able to pan a full 360 degrees around the church. ''Harv was concerned about what the interior of the church would cost,'' Scorsese recalls. ''He was asking question after question. Finally Tom said, 'Will you please give Marty the church? He needs it.''' Flanked by Scorsese, Ferretti, the film's other producers, and a grimacing Cruise, Weinstein capitulated and approved $100,000 for the building, later dubbed St. Thomas. ''Ironically enough,'' says Weinstein, ''it's 180 [degrees] in the movie.'' Of course, that's not how Scorsese sees it. ''Oh, no, no, no,'' he says. ''I like the full church.''
Hahahaha, that's great.
That story makes me wanna hug Tom for helping Marty out.
And kudos to Harvey, he came through.
But its sad to me that it took Tom Cruise to convince Harvey to do it. Harv, it's MARTIN FUCKING SCORSESE who wants the church built!!
haha thats a great story
TOM: Harvey, pleeeeeeease, let Marty build the church. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease. PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE...
HARVEY: Nhé..... OK, but he'll have to cut another five minutes from the final runing time!
MARTY: Fuck you. It's gonna be 4 hours and 57 minutes as we discussed.
HARVEY: No no. It's gonna be 88 minutes, including credits. It's either that or no church.
TOM: I'm gonna go now...
HARVEY: No you're not, you're gonna sit right there. We didn't shoot your scene yet!
TOM: But I'm not in the movie...
HARVEY: You are now. You'll have a cameo here and then we will put your pretty face in the poster and advertise it as the first Leo-Cruise teaming. In fact, you're gonna have Liam Neeson's part. He can go back to Ireland right now.
TOM: Marty?...
MARTY: Do you know what fellatio is Harvey?
HARVEY: I'm not very good in German. Why don't you tell me what it is?
MARTY: It's when I put my pants down and you start su...
OK OK..... I'll stop right here. It's not that funny anyway...
EDITED: Fellatio.... FELLATIO..... it was supposed to have been fellatio
Quote from: RoyalTenenbaumMARTY: Do you know what cunnilingus is Harvey?
HARVEY: I'm not very good in German. Why don't you tell me what it is?
MARTY: It's when I put my pants down and you start su...
...that's fellatio, unless Marty has something to tell us.
My problem with this little story is it exhibits exactly what was wrong with Gangs of New York. It reminds me a little bit about the stories of Apocalypse Now, except not as tragic for the filmmaker. Any filmmaker worth his salt knows that a $100,000 church built for the sole reason of doing a 360-degree pan is
NOT NECESSARY for the story. And any filmmaker worth his salt would think of another way to shoot that scene instead of blowing another $100,000 he didn't need to blow. And any filmmaker worth his salt would've made Gangs of New York a much better movie than it actually was. Don't get me wrong, I had fun, but the last act -- as we're so prone to calling the ending -- sucked. *takes cover*
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaAny filmmaker worth his salt knows that a $100,000 church built for the sole reason of doing a 360-degree pan is NOT NECESSARY for the story.
Irrelevent. A church doesn't have to be built necessarily for narrative purposes. It's called "Art Direction"....:wink:
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
And any filmmaker worth his salt would think of another way to shoot that scene instead of blowing another $100,000 he didn't need to blow.
Remember that this is not a filmmaker who is worrying about keeping a cheap budget. When you consider how large it already was, do you think 100 grand is that
much?
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaAnd any filmmaker worth his salt would've made Gangs of New York a much better movie than it actually was.
Maybe so. But who cares?
Quote...that's fellatio, unless Marty has something to tell us.
Fuck...... it was written very quickly and, well, it was a stupid mistake. I sure hope he doesn't have anything to tell us.
The Last Temptation of Cunnilingus.
That should go in the Porn title thread.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: RoyalTenenbaumMARTY: Do you know what cunnilingus is Harvey?
HARVEY: I'm not very good in German. Why don't you tell me what it is?
MARTY: It's when I put my pants down and you start su...
...that's fellatio, unless Marty has something to tell us.
My problem with this little story is it exhibits exactly what was wrong with Gangs of New York. It reminds me a little bit about the stories of Apocalypse Now, except not as tragic for the filmmaker. Any filmmaker worth his salt knows that a $100,000 church built for the sole reason of doing a 360-degree pan is NOT NECESSARY for the story. And any filmmaker worth his salt would think of another way to shoot that scene instead of blowing another $100,000 he didn't need to blow. And any filmmaker worth his salt would've made Gangs of New York a much better movie than it actually was. Don't get me wrong, I had fun, but the last act -- as we're so prone to calling the ending -- sucked. *takes cover*
No, no.... YOU SUCK! :wink:
Any filmmaker worth his salt knows that an actor is more comfortable and can really get into character when he has the real thing to work with, and not a 2-D cardboard cutout.
Here's how inconsequential it was though: it's been almost a year since I've seen Gangs of New York, and I still remember a lot about it. But what I don't remember is the church, and that's how little of importance it is. Any actor worth his salt would be able to act, no matter the setting. Acting is so much more mental than physical. I respect Scorsese for what he does, but obviously a lot more people think more highly of him than I do. As I've said before, problem with his films is, none of the ones I've seen have really blown me away like other greats have, and a lot of the times, it's because they lack heart. The closest he's come for me is Taxi Driver, but I don't want to go off on a tangent like that. I only question this because it seems so superfluous, especially because there are other filmmakers, such as the von Triers, Korines (haven't seen his, but so I've heard), and Soderberghs of the world, who can make compelling films on shoestring budgets, and continue to do so even though they don't have to.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaAny actor worth his salt would be able to act, no matter the setting. Acting is so much more mental than physical.
Getting a performance and getting a great performance are two different things. One of Marty's strengths has always been getting the very best out of his actors, and one reason is that he creates such an atmosphere of creativity and trust and authenticity that they do the career making performances they do. The proof is in the pudding, all the actors are falling all over themselves to work with him. If we go by what you said, why didn't he do ALL of Gangs with 2 piece sets and CGI? Because part of the reason for doing the project was building this specific New York.
And the church is fairly memorable, in a McCabe And Mrs Miller sort of way, it gets progessively built over the course of the movie, and is the main site in 3 fairly major scenes.
Trust me, with the few actors I've worked with in my life, 50% could perform in any type of situation, but 100% would prefer the full set. If you're expecting your people to go out on a limb and risk looking stupid for the sake of reaching a great performance, you have to make them feel like they have some security, and this kinda thing (I believe) would go a long way.
I agree 100% with what SoNowThen said. Also, I'm reminded of Alec Guinness's disliking for the blue screens in Star Wars and how it was boring for him.
But you're forgetting one important factor in this little debate: Star Wars sucks, anyways. ;)
haha
Quote from: CinephileI agree 100% with what SoNowThen said. Also, I'm reminded of Alec Guinness's disliking for the blue screens in Star Wars and how it was boring for him.
I did some research when you said this, because I couldn't believe they used blue screens in the mid-seventies.
Anyway, you were right, but I never realized how much Alec Guinness hated making Star Wars. Here's some funny quotes:
"Science fiction - which gives me pause - but it is to be directed by Paul Lucas, who did American Graffiti, which makes me think I should. Big part. Fairytale rubbish, but could be interesting" - while considering doing Star Wars
[Guinness discussing how much he disliked working on Star Wars (1977) and his attempts to encourage George Lucas to kill off Obi-Wan Kenobi] "And he agreed with me. What I didn't tell him was that I just couldn't go on speaking those bloody awful, banal lines. I'd had enough of the mumbo jumbo."
"I shrivel up every time someone mentions Star Wars to me."
"Apart from the money, I regret having embarked on the film. I like them well enough, but it's not an acting job, the dialogue - which is lamentable - keeps being changed and only slightly improved, and I find myself old and out of touch with the young" - during filming of Star Wars