Gangs of New York (2002) - Crime, Drama

Hohum Score

91

Hohummer

In 1862, Amsterdam Vallon returns to the Five Points area of New York City seeking revenge against Bill the Butcher, his father's killer.

IMDB: 7.5
Director: Martin Scorsese
Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz
Length: 167 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 231 out of 1020 found boring (22.64%)

One-line Reviews (866)

There's also a little confusion as to motivation.

However, Diaz and Di Caprio are at their most boring and the films use of colourful clothing dilutes the power Scorsese is trying to achieve.

Daniel Day Lewis gives a riveting, fascinating, over-the-top performance, one of his finest.

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.

It also was part of the reason why the film occasionally felt so disjointed.

Confusing, boring and sometimes irritating, Gangs is the worstScorsese in years...

One-dimensional, violent, pointless .

It seems to me that it is too much pretentious.

That's 4 exciting moments in a film that runs for 160 minutes - no wonder I struggled making it to the end.

This film is so bad I almost walked out of the theater before the end.

But take on The Butcher he does and the results are a story so sinister yet emotionally gripping that you know why it bears the name Scorcese.

The shot at the end where the graves are seen in front of an increasingly modernized, more familiar NYC was disliked by several people I spoke to for some reason or other but I actually enjoyed it and thought it was a good touch.

Yes, Cutting is an extraordinary character--totally compelling & riveting for every moment he is onscreen.

Completely evocative.

Reilly the cast, for the most part, uplifted the rather dull 3/4s of the film and made it a slightly more enjoyable ride.

Overall this film is stunningly boring.

But as I said, this work did not rate his performance, as it was too blustery and overblown to be entertaining.

Now I haven't watched all of his films, but for me this has to be the one that seems to be the longest, even though Casino was longer I enjoyed it even more than Goodfellas.

Yet this film really makes me wonder what's happened to the cinema going public when a film as predictable and flimsy as this gains artistic recognition.

This movie was boring, boring, boring.

BUT it was way too long.

GANGS OF NEW YORK has qualities, it's lively, dynamic, engrossing, thrilling.

This had to be the most boring confusing, worthless movie ever crafted.

Diaz does a good job acting this character out but by the end of the film, her character seems very pointless to the story.

It was entertaining enough though to give it a 6/10.

I did not enjoy it just because of the excessive violence or for it being a gangster movie but I enjoyed it because it had a good plot and the fact that Martin Scorcese decided to take a little bit of a different approach to ways his films are presented.

Exciting, thrilling and stunning in each way.

The progression of DiCaprio and Day-Lewis's relationship throughout the movie was entertaining to watch, since there were many times I wasn't sure what DiCaprio's character would do in the face of Day'Lewis's character's actions

Day-Lewis was stunning and he was the reason Gangs of New York was able to rise above competent to be classed as a good movie.

If the story had been fresh or unpredictable or...

For about an hour in the middle, the film is very tedious and doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Despite these traits, it makes for a devilishly entertaining film of epic length.

The interaction between these two main characters was the most enjoyable part of the film.

The rest is filler, and dull, tedious filler at that.

There is one second of intense silence, then the police open fire.

Waste of time .

Stunning, Amazing and superbly crafted history .

I saw this film by recommendation and i have to say despite its large amounts of violence it was rather enjoyable.

Let's take Gangs of New York: - Leonardo DiCaprio is a such bad actor and he cannot deal with a big role, he's just too uninteresting.

Another example is how a man could be stabbed in the chest and stand and talk as if nothing happened to him.

the conclusion did lack the frisson and unpredictable drama promised by the rest of film.

Bad movie, historically inaccurate, and a propaganda piece.

He was worth watching for 3 hours.

Can someone explain to me why or how this movie is enjoyable/great?

Over all it was a very compelling movie because of Danial Day Lewis's performance as the butcher Bill.

I was bored to death in some parts.

His anger, sophistication and ease make the Butcher the most enjoyable character to watch.

Gangs of New York is a flawed picture, but oh what a masterfully entertaining flawed picture.

The catalyst is of course Martin Scorsese (Oscar-nominated in direction) who combined the finest elements of seemingly every other film he has ever worked on and added intense methods from directors like Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock and the greats of the Italian cinema like Federico Fellini.

Suddenly the battle in the Five Points is shown to be pointless when compared to the whole of the city and the Nation that is currently in strife, which I believe is a brilliant point.

After a bloody and horrifically realistic opening battle, the gang warfare festers on in simplistic Protestant vs Catholic rabble-rousing fashion whilst Di Caprio, Diaz and Daniel Day-Lewis all take turns to sparkle a bit.

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).

The first is worthy of comparison as a superb treatment of many of the same themes, and in similar contexts: the father/son relationships, the historical context (in that case the Great Depression in place of the American Civil War), and the stunning cinematography.

If this movie was Manos: The Hands of Fate and Daniel Day-Lewis delivered a performance like this it would still be worth watching.

I was steadily sinking in my seat as the movie progressed into a boring, set justification excuse of a movie.

abracadabra, he's gone and is replaced by Billy the Butcher, a painstakingly slow talking, moustachioed, fake eyeball wearing, Bronx speaking native of New York.

My immediate feelings before seeing this film were recollections of the first half of Jerry McGuire ( an enjoyable romp ).

It goes on for far too long.

If your story is compelling, and your characters are strong, you don't NEED to insert some useless romantic subplot.

The battle scenes while sometimes grotesque are epic and worth the watch.

boring .

The meticulously designed sets and costumes are certainly nice eye candy and the cinematography was occasionally stunning.

The "plot" (I use the term not merely loosely but with something that would verge, unenclosed with the requisite scare quotes, as intellectual fraudulence) has been described elsewhere on IMDb, so I shall not attempt, even if such an attempt were either possible or worthwhile, to corral the disjointed episodes of Scorsese's free fantasia into a semblance of order.

I wish he would return to movies he took only a few years to make like Mean Streets or Taxi Driver or King of Comedy instead of these ingenious, awe inspiring works of overincubated art fart that no one seems to enjoy as much as the man who dealt it.

3 hours of crap.

Awful one of the worst movies I have ever seen .

As you expect from Scorsese this is very violent and bloody but its engaging stuff.

"Five Points" by Tyler Anbinder describes a much more compelling 19th century Lower East Side NY setting than what we see here, and (best of all) it is historically accurate.

The acting is very fine with Leonardo DiCaprio giving a rousing performance as Amsterdam, son of a slain gang leader returning to avenge his father's death.

Long movies are good only when long movies are entertaining.

REVIEW: Compelling.

Extremely pointless and not in the least attractive.

But the flawlessly brilliant performance of Daniel Day-Lewis was positively riveting!

Everything from his perfect proto New York accent to his leers, squints and grimaces, to his flashes of sarcastic wit, to his stylized body language, make him the most compelling screen character that I have seen for quite a while.

The pacing was a little slow at times but the performances by the cast make it worth watching anyway.

Final Verdict: It may not be the greatest entry in Scorsese's unbelievable filmography, but this is still worth watching overall.

Majority of the movie was very intriguing, because there were fight scenes and it was establishing the setting of an Irish-immigrant populated city during war.

When i went to see this movie the two guys next to me walked out after 10 minutes and a guy next to them (i'm not kidding) was snorring so loudly after 40 minutes that the people on the row behind him had to kick his seat to wake him up.

The start was slow, and the plot seemed to jump around and was hard to follow at times.

" Nothing happened??

Overall, Scorsese deals out a hard dose of a side of history that has been overlooked for far too long.

At times the film really sucked bad, including the main talking parts,they were boring and since i was watching this film at night, i nearly dropped off and i wasn't even tired.

As this tedious and brutal film lumbers on towards its predictable conclusion, we realize that for Scorsese these savage, sadistic, racist thugs are admirable ; they are, in a sense I'm unable to understand, the ones who "built America", although by the time Di Caprio as narrator tells us this, they have already spent three hours tearing down everything in sight.

Gripping, Riveting, Undeniably Good; Until the Final Third .

Not altogether a bad film, so if you're bored, then by all means watch it.

The film just seemed too dragged on.

In the long-term this film could take two paths, it could slowly fade into obscurity or after the inevitable 4 hour director's cut it could emerge even duller to be acclaimed as a misunderstood masterpiece.

great filmmaking overcomes banal story .

While both Lewis and DiCaprio do a fantastic job in this movie it is quite long so make sure you have a healthy amount of popcorn for your movie watching.

Even Cameron Diaz comes and gives a gripping performance.

It was exciting at almost all times and exposed the grimy, ruthless side of 1860's NYC.

dragged on and on...

boring...

Holding a narrative together is a simple revenge fantasy that pits an Irish-Catholic immigrant's son (and who's to say the boy wasn't born in America- irony of ironies, he's only ten or so in the film's prologue) against a Know-Nothing Nativist (Bill the Butcher, played with stunning ferocity by Daniel Day-Lewis).

The script was messy, and was let down by so much happening in a short space of time after a long / slow / boring, build up.

Pointless.

The performances, like in any other Scorsese picture, are intricate, marvelous, and absolutely engaging.

See the movie for his performance, it is still very good and entertaining.

Opening on a violent, chaotic & instantly gripping note but losing its grasp in the middle, Gangs of New York impresses in bits n pieces but it's nonetheless worth a watch for Day-Lewis' riveting act alone.

The movie is much more than just Bill Cutter (although he is quite enough) the other actors were superb, the directing flawless, the screenplay engaging and brilliant and the film sets as far as I know were unbelievably excellent with regard to depicting the period!

I'm just here to say- this film is the most violent, long, drawn-out example of carnage I've ever seen.

(See LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL for a man who is good and who is also fascinating and delightful to watch).

I think it is only fair to point out that despite the great sets and acting (most of it), this movie seems to be going nowhere for almost 3 hours.

The killing is drawn out and overemphasized.

She is pretty stunning here no denying.

On the flip side the knife throwing scene is brilliantly exciting and Cameron looks genuinely frightened, I know I was, fell in love with her again - damn.

The whole film is plagued with pretentious editing and a story line that seems something out of a Arnold Schwartzenegger movie rather than an American history book.

An uncontrollable force of stunning imagery thrown at the audience.

And for that we can be glad because for all its authenticity, this is a totally over-bloated bore.

However, when I did I was greatly amused that I actually thoroughly enjoyed it.

Boring and Contrived with fake set pieces .

It was a true waste of my time.

The first thing one notices is that Scorsese's new masterpiece is visually stunning.

Day-Lewis is breathtaking.

Leonardo Dicaprio once again delivers a predictable performance, Cameron Diaz cannot figure out if she's an Irish immigrant or a dumb blonde from Hollywood.

If a little uninspiring, he was still very watchable.

zzzz...

The performances in this stunning film were just amazing, Daniel Day-Lewis making an amazing entrance after a 5 year break.

One of the worst films I have ever seen - Marty you can keep my money but you owe me 3 hours of my life!

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 film holds off on coating the story with sugar and sweetness because we have been told the soft-side of history for far too long.

Everything was great, besides the gritty violence, but also the pace dragged in places.

Overall - I'd either go see it in a matinee or wait until it comes out in Blockbuster so you can rent it and fast forward through the boring parts - because trust me, there are a LOT of them in this movie.

(The bad editing disrupts the flow to the extent that things get disjointed and confusing at times).

However what hurt this film is that it is way too long, and you almost feel like the director is trying to drag it out further with a series of scenes that have little or no bearing on the story.

Strong and Entertaining .

I found the time recreation unique and intriguing .

On the downside: The story was slow and clunking and it's a shame that Weinstein couldn't persuade Scorsese to trim the film more.

Unfortunately, the ambitious allegory he aims for gets as confusing as his storytelling and the cultural stereotypes abound.

This revenge story get stretched for far too long, and was not a satisfying conclusion to the movie due to the other plot lines coming in and taking its ton on the script.

It was intriguing how they showed the changes NYC had gone through since that time.

Overall this film is a waste of time.

one drawback is the length of the movie, i felt that the second part of the movie is separate than its first onethat is a great movie worth watching and understanding..........

If you have 3 hours of your time that you would like to spend watching a halfway decent movie, then watch this movie, otherwise choose another.

This movie started out great, with a stunning battle, then morphed into sub-par dribble.

Scorsese has done better, but this is still well worth watching.

Way too long, lacking in any kind of continuity, historically muddled, pointless love story, weak lead performance,laughable ending...

I thoroughly enjoyed it, and not just because I'm Irish...

I was rather disappointed to see a bland film even though the cast and director are top-notch.

The opening fight segment was awesome the photography was out standing, the way the music worked the audience in to a tense frenzy awaiting the arrival of the native gang,thrilling!

In my imaginary cut the movie ends by Helga jumping in and dancing a little Irish jig, wielding a razor sharp neon-pink dildo she plunges in Pretty Boy's stomach, after which she delivers a stunning aria.

GANGS IS MIND BLOWING.

You had basic scenes with little happening that were drawn out with and other scences where important plot information was being present rushed through.

3 hours for this storyline is way too long.

So if you can get past the long running time Gangs Of New York is definitely worth watching and most of that besides what I already mentioned is because of the exceptional performances (especially Day Lewis and DiCaprio) by the lead actors and the amazing talent of Scorcese who continues to prove himself as a gifted filmmaker with this movie.

OK, comparing to Scorsese's classical cinematic masterpieces, this may not be a movie to remember, but it still is a solid, entertaining story.

I twice considered walking out because I was so bored--a few people did leave.

That surprises me somewhat, as the story is gripping from a historical perspective, and the performances by the principals are more than adequate.

Martin Scorcses (forgive my spelling mistakes) made an inspirational, moving, heart-throbbing, action packed movie that will be remembered.

Disppointingly slow .

Simpler fare for a simpler time, yes, but there was something entertaining in the way it was done.

The disjointed and convoluted story never really seems to have a point.

Visually speaking the film is very solid piece of work and the old New York looks stunning and the atmosphere is thick and intriguing, as are the multiple character of the story, starting from the Butcher and corrupt politicians to Amsterdams love interest Jenny (Cameron Diaz).

It was long, slow, and had little of interest in it.

It's as dull as dishwater quite frankly.

So it is not one of director Martin Scorscese's greatest films but it is still outstanding, a dirty, gory, intense and beautifully realised epic.

"Gangs" is bloated, boring, baffling, beautiful in a distant, garish, and strange way.

Barnum, for one), completely predictable plot, over-the-top gratuitous violence and a seemingly never-ending runtime combined to make this the first time in years that I actually witnessed patrons walking out.

Transitions from exteriors to interiors, and the relation of community features to each other, were confusing.

I thought the plot was dragging and uninteresting, the acting was disappointing and there was nothing epic about it at all.

Even more intriguing to watch is to juxtapose DiCaprio's performance here with his performance in Titanic, in correlation to Daniel Day's performance here, in comparison to his work in The Last Of The Mohicans.

Knowing this, the film becomes more real and thus, more enjoyable.

Overwrought with pretentious dialogue and sequences, Gangs was a pretty shallow experience after the opening battle between the Irish and Natives.

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.

Although the almost three hour long film was a bit dry at points, the narrative and story lines were interesting and intense enough that the viewers attention was always captivated.

Three hours of gore, violence and airyheaded plotline was enough for me.

Daniel Day-Lewis is absolutely stunning as the vibrant villian, William Cutting, the pig butcher.

The love side of the story was all a bit pointless.

the acting was superb Daniel Day Lewis is stunning in his role, cameron diaz was okay.

Martin Scorcese delivers a sweeping epic of mid-nineteenth century New York, but the film lacks the kind of depth needed to hold the audience's attention for the nearly three hours of running time it takes to unfold.

I found many of the slow paced dialog scenes both uninteresting and unnecessary to forward the plot.

But after that, the whole movie went downhill and was rendered totally forgettable and unwatchable.

The set design alone, along with the fantastic costumes should be enough, but The acting by Daniel Day Lewis was just mind boggling.

The first few sequences were undoubtedly attention-grabbing, but after the first half hour, things became incredibly boring.

With so much word of mouth suggesting that the movie is an orgy of fighting and clashing gangs it must be infuriating for the films marketers when they advise that it may be anything else, therefore I put any preconceived notions aside when watching and found it to be quite an enjoyable movie – up to a point.

Some stunning scenes were created on the back of his acting; for me it was the perfect marriage of character and actor.

Only dull.

While I do have some complaints with the way that Scorsese handled the film's style I found it to be a very enjoyable film highlighted by one of the finest performances of all time.

While it is entertaining for a while, about half way through, you realize that the story, while poignant, is grossly overdone.

The man is shown to have values, but is also immersed in such an evil dour that one wonders why he's even in the movie at all.

The good news is, apparently the average attention span for a film is 2 hours, so around the 2 hour mark people seemed to leave the theater in droves, and I finally was able to experience the final hour in relative peace.

You can read the ending two ways: perhaps the riot does bring solidarity to the people of New York, or perhaps it is the final outburst of a conflict that even Amsterdam seems to recognise as pointless at the end of this flawed, grimly magnificent film.

Tiresome, cheesy, predictable...

However, this is one exciting looking movie, a real visual treat which belongs on the big screen.

I mean who am I to judge how they want to end their movie but if your going to do a complete 180 at least set it up it come off confusing and out of place.

And in other words, it's exciting trash.

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!

While the film can be a bit slow moving at times and some characters have heavy accents that can be tough to understand at times.

The film is well-done and the scenes that are supposed to be so, are intense.

DeCaprio is a bit boring to me.

Having seen thousands of movies over the years, I would have to say this is one of the worst movies I have seen.

While the film kind of chugs a bit in the middle parts, the beginning and the end form terrific bookends to a highly entertaining, and extremely well-made film.

Within this plot certain themes are writ large - the honour of one-on-one combat, the idea of revenge as something almost sacred, the hero's coming of age and so forth.

Anyways, it's overall a good film and definitely worth watching even though it suffers at times.

Its worth watching at least once...

Easily, one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see.

The look of the film is great, and the fight scenes that punctuate the film gruesome and exciting.

Yawn .

it seems that the only movies scorsesi is capable of doing are those brutal classics like taxi driver, raging bull or goodfellas, but in providing this latest output with a gripping atmosphere he failed in my humble opinion.

Most not so flattering, but all very fascinating.

' Moreover, the dialogue is utterly banal and uninspired, consisting mainly of syrupy platitudes and half-baked philosophizing.

You can't really take him as a rival for the butcher, but it's still an engrossing tale.

Tweed's political manipulations are entertaining to watch and provide an extra dimension to "Gangs...

Interesting, but far from entertaining .

This movie was so intriguing to me because of Daniel Lewis.

I'll not go into specifics here, but I would like to comment on how modern day "filmies" have traveled so far up the alimentary canals of so-called "geniuses" like Scorsese, that they have lost sight of the fact that these folks just put out BORING movies these days.

The final sequence where we zoom into a The Butcher's glass eye and its revealed that its an eagle was trite and clichéd.

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).

Twenty years of film time later, and three hours of real time, later he finally gets around to fighting him, and that is pretty much the entirety of the plot.

There are a couple of scenes with her that are entertaining.

As it turned out, Bill seemed real, Amsterdam seemed as contrived a character as his name implied.

Scorsese's recreation of the city is stunning: the level of detail completely immerses the viewer into an atmosphere scarcely read of in History books.

Gut-churning, but thrilling and masterfully executed.

Ugly, unappealing, unoriginal, predictable to the nth degree and a beautiful spring day down the drain.

It begins and ends as a formulaic Hollywood blockbuster, colored a curious orange all the way through as if to mimic someone's sense of what a world filled with candlelight might have looked like.

I found the end of the movie (the rioting part), a bit confusing.

What is going to happen with this epic film however, it that the audience who sees it is going to be so caught up in the stunning sets, costumes, and accuracy in historical events that the main plot is going to slip form their minds.

I forgot it right when I left the theater.

With the breathtaking sets and costumes, the action in several scenes seem to be played out within an antique jewel-box.

The problem is that "Gangs of New York" is overlong, and there are long stretches where it gets kind of boring.

Now mind you I watched the long TV movie version so it ended up being around three hours long, but it is quite enjoyable to say the least.

One of them is the uninteresting love story between Amsterdam(Di Caprio ) and Jenny (Diaz).

The ending turned out to be the cheap and predictable choice, since that's what the audience had been conditioned to want by Bill's evil antics and Scorsese's manipulation.

Michael Ballhaus's cinematography is amazing, and Howard Shore's rousing score is incredible.

This movie is still worth watching.

Daniel Day-Lewis is mesmerizing in his intense portrayal of The Butcher.

it's slow in parts and I think it's failing is I don't care about the characters.

Boring .

The film is shot with great impact by Michael Ballhaus, who captures the filth and local colour of this pit of criminals in stunning detail, and makes some of the street battles seem very urgent and shockingly gory.

Grand in the big picture, weak in the details, yet stunning still.

Gangs of New York is a macho 19th century American epic, well designed and packs a heck of a brutal punch, but it comes with a story that is clunky, ponderous, and not very involving.

After the first hour of the film, I found myself not connecting with the characters, hence became extremely boring.

Such a pity that most teenagers will be bored stupid.

Cameron Diaz is capable enough at playing her character, yet the character is quite a waste of time in terms of the narrative, and is only necessary for the role she plays in understanding the Butcher - her telling of how he took her in et al - otherwise, it just seems for box office they had to slot in some token romance.

GANGS OF NEW YORK is an exciting and interesting epic, violent melodrama, scary sleazy sensationalism, with some great Robert De Niro impersonation by Day—Lewis.

It had no plot twits at all.

propaganda.

Pompous disjointed mess .

Excellent, Well worth Watching .

Ambitious, provocative, off-beat, but excessively long, "Gangs of New York ranks more as a triumph of set design and period detail, not overlooking Day-Lewis' exceptional, Oscar-worthy performance as the villain, than an exciting showdown between two titans.

"A stunning period gangster epic" 8/10

The plot is predictable and monotonous.

If you want to waste hours of your life you will never get back, and a considerable sum of money, go to the Gangs.

rather boring, not believable and therefor distracting.

A worthy, enjoyable enterprise though, with the era brought to light and a performance to be remembered by Day Lewis.

It had the same beautiful-people leads (DiCaprio \ Diaz), the same predictable romantic arc (though without the class difference), the same poor-boy-with-regal-bearing-and-inscrutable-moral-character-who's-destined-t o-rise-above-the-evil-people-in-power (why can't he SEE that??

The only thing that kept me from walking out was the excellent performance of Daniel Day Lewis, otherwise this film was a disgraceful waste of time.

The movie has so much going on that it becomes quite confusing.

He is boring and acts the same in every movie he does.

The Film is directed great, a long film that is entertaining throughout.

Point blank this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

This movie was so awe inspiring that it urged me to take a NYC History course at school.

biggest waste of $8 and 3 hours of my life .

Daniel Day Lewis was superb and was worth watching him alone!

Profound waste of time .

What I really would like to know is that is this movie based on an real historical story, if it is then it's just breathtaking.

The setting provides a stunning mixture of the real and the surreal, with everything from the clapboard buildings to the foot-tall hats deriving their style from extrapolated exaggeration.

Grazzie mille / Thank you very much for continuing to give audiences such an intense, intelligent and rich work.

Yes, this film is indeed visually stunning.

Also there were some suspenseful moments during the movie and also parts that made you realize why this movie is rated R.

If I didn't have to suffer through the films first 2 hours, I might have been tempted to give the film a good review based on that very compelling sequence.

That confrontation is made all the more fascinating by the fact they spend so much of the film as allies, Bill treating Amsterdam quite ironically almost as a son.

the pulsating hich school marching band style snare drums that continuously play to a fast paced beat actually begins to give you a headache before the film is finished.

The only thing is that it's too slow,it's like you're watching a movie from the 70's,why do they still make movies this way?.

A lot of people were complaining about how long it ran for, but I think long movies are far more engaging than a short one.

The way the characters go about fighting each other is fascinating to watch I love seeing the unusual methods they use on each other.

It's confusing and pretty messy.

It was fast paced and easy to follow once you're 20 or so minutes in.

As for the cast,only Daniel Day-Lewis' compelling performance as Bill the Butcher remains notable.

Those who have seen Michael Corleone's voyage from good to evil will find Amsterdam's tribulations tedious and trite by comparison.

Set during the Civil War during the 1860s and telling the gangland history of New York that is a skyline today, Martin Scorsese has crafted Gangs of New York in stunning detail and his direction is as good as the movie along with its impressive art direction, crisp editing & superb cinematography.

Fascinating throughout, Scorcese fires a highly unusual story through many twists and turns without ever losing sight of his most important characters.

Gangs of New York had my eyes glued to the screen as an amazing, stunning, historical piece to Martin Scorcese's filmography, until the final third of the movie where it fell a little flat.

From the very start, with the appearance of Liam Neeson in yet another benevolent hero role, the tone is set for the cliché overload.

I didn't care about any of the characters, and was actually just bored and little disgusted with all the bloody violence.

This movie is by far the worst movie Mr. Scorsese has ever done.

The settings and sets are superb and credit must go to those who created them as they look stunning.

If you suffer from insomnia, this is your solution (alhtough it is a rather noisy option).

But several hours after leaving the theatre, it all made sense, and it's something which transcends the hum-drum, senseless, pointless violence we all ee depicted on our screens every day of the week, something which trascends genre, nationality, ethnicity, so-called vengeance...

Perhaps Bill's most fascinating quality is his similarity to the knights of old.

A Compelling Watch!

So if you want to fall asleep watch this movie, beacuse the movie needed to be shorter than three hours, and it needed more fighting scenes, than what it gave us.

And as for those who have suggested that it's just another boring, re-hashed story about 'vengeance'...

Awful, unoriginal, contrived film.

Way too long for what the story gives.

Scorsese brings his definitive style and deep, personal conviction to both films, elaborately exploring cultural and historic upheavels at intriguing moments in the history of a city which has had a profound place in the artist's body of work.

I'll start with the good bit, visually this film is at times stunning.

It was also morality play with Day-Lewis as Satan, Di Caprio a type of Christ about his father's business, and Diaz as Mary Magdalen, with a supporting cast of predictable and grimacing devils of various shades of evil, for, unlike Dickens or Dostoyevsky, nothing good seemed to shine out in The Five Points.

If I wasn't with my husband I would have walked out of the theater.

Each act has its own climax and the pacing of the movie becomes very slow, and sometimes too slow, in the transitions between them.

For the record, GONY is about fathers and sons (yawn - isn't just about every over-rated US movie about fathers and sons these days?

I have to say, I let all that boring commentary wash over me, waited for the movie to open and bought my ticket.

Personally,though,I couldn't help but feel the movie was trying to send me to sleep,a meandering,lengthy hodge-podge of bland characterization,ineffective characters,disjointed plotting and a script that always seems to be trying too hard.

Only Martin Scorsese could get this pointless and expensive pot-boiler made and only the presence of a top class actor like Daniel Day-Lewis stops it from falling apart at the seams.

Worth watching for Day Lewis and to see the difference between a great actor and mediocrity.

The movie is too long, badly edited, laughable at times and the ending is just ridiculous (and should have come about 90 minutes earlier!

It's so boring, I actually thought to myself, "Why not read a book?

A strong comment on violence, racism and intolerance as well as a moving, exciting work of art.

Yet, those aspects were undercut by the contrived plot, the ridiculously Hollywood treatment of the love story between De Caprio and Diaz and the familiar revenge theme.

Leonardo DiCaprio delivers an emotionally credible performance as a man seeking revenge for the death of his father (as depicted in the film's opening and gruesomely stunning battle sequence) whilst Cameron Diaz is also mature enough to convince the audience of her character's plight.

Scorsese's direction has the drama going up & down throughout its runtime, for many segments are highly engaging while others are poorly handled & tediously paced.

Daniel Day-Lewis is absolutely stunning here.

The intriguing counterpoint to Scorsese's other masterful view of historic New York.

Visually the film was stunning and the history was accurate to a degree.

Intense, disturbing and powerful .

It all happened very quickly at first and then I found it dragged for a while before picking up towards the end.

We are introduced to Priest Vallon and Bill The Butcher in the beginning of the film, and the scenes with Liam Neeson were absolutely stunning.

Not because of the violence but because of the painfully dull 166 minutes I spent watching the thing.

It was hard to follow and even harder to get into the characters.

But then it picks up for the ending and gives you a very compelling finale.

The historicity is badly mangled in several places, which is puzzling, since the actual history is entertaining enough.

This movie was a bit slow in the beginning.

And Daniel Day-Lewis became now my favourite actor with his intensive performance.

From renowned director Martin Scorsese comes this compelling, tour de force tale of freedom, retribution, and survival.

But nevertheless, Gangs of New York is a well-paced, accessible, entertaining and even thrilling historical blockbuster, featuring a wonderfully indulgent production and a glorious and astoundingly good Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill 'The Butcher'.

It's the fault of the script, which places them in a relentlessly bland and stale revenge plot, and and even more stale romantic triangle.

The movie's powerful scenes performed by Day-Lewis are startling, dazzling and stunning, which at one point was so realistically shocking that stunned me transfixed on the seat for minutes.

A messy yet thrilling historical epic .

It should have been Scorsese's magnum opus, but apparently Harvey Weinstein and the likes had Marty's balls in a vice, and the movie came out disorganized, hampered and tiresome.

Everything from set design to Daniel Day-Lewis's performance made this movie an enjoyable experience.

A film that made you so angry,but yet left you in tears due to its compelling story,characters,and visuals?

Because of this, it felt like I was watching a movie, rather than being immersed in a story, because I had to try with intent to understand the different levels of the film.

It's so uneven and sloppy I almost walked out.

Just be prepared for a rather slow paced beginning with a anti-climatic ending.

Gangs of New York,like Casino,is very,very entertaining and interesting.

The visuals are stunning, and the movie does take an unflinching look at life in New York under the sway of "Boss Tweed" as he was known when he was mayor of New York (quick history fact - Tammany Hall, which is mentioned in the movie as a courthouse Tweed wants to build, was recently converted into the new headquarters for the NY Teacher's Association by Mayor Bloomberg, another extremely rich person.

It is still rather bland and lengthy.

He created a three-hour long script of action drama, breathtaking to watch.

it was too long and boring and the climax wasn't that thrilling eighter.

Ridiculously cast,uneven, messily constructed and dull, from the opening minutes as the Dead Rabbits venture into the daylight to meet their foe's the visuals of the buildings and lighting does not give the impression of 19th century New York more like some derelict neighbourhood in Northern Europe,along with the multiple non American accents the film is strangely out of place it little like Pacino's Revolution and Kubericks Full metal jacket.

I think I counted that there were about 4 moments in this film that I would class as being mildly exciting.

But i think it's worth watching specially for the performance by Daniel day lewis,what a performance, he brings a completely new character to life, it's a classic performance that definitely should win an oscar, and should be compared to all the other classic performances like Marlon Brando's in the Godfather or Al pacino's in Scent of a woman , it's one of these performances.

Some strong performances (particularly from Daniel Day Lewis), exqusite cinematography and first-rate art direction do their best to compensate for a plodding, overly ambitious train wreck of a screenplay (somewhat surprising considering it comes from A-list writers Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan).

In essence, Gangs of New York is quite a boring film.

Not a pretty chapter, necessarily, but a fascinating one nonetheless.

And yet, to add further confusion, we are told that internal disputes had forced Scorcese to make "damaging" cuts to the release version of this film, and that fans have been clamoring for him to release an even more painfully dragged-out director's cut (a request which he has firmly resisted).

This movie was so awe inspiring that it urged me to take a NYC History course at school.

you will come away from this film with a similar feeling that you get from the recent deniro movies; i didnt waste my money, didn't waste my time, but i really didn't get anything out of it but passing the time.

But in GONY he was bland.

Any scene with Day Lewis is worth watching.

He knows how to give you the action up close and make the dialogue appear interesting which is useful give some of the stodgy lines dotted around.

Unfortunately since I did have to waste two hours of my life to get to that point, I just cannot recommend this film.

Even the film's climax is rather predictable (although it did at least add a bit of much needed excitement).

Pointless Bloodshed Over Facial Hair .

Reasons to see this film are the first battle scene which is very intense if a little gory, most scenes with Daniel Day-Lewis and it's always nice to see Cameron Diaz on screen.

It is rare to see so many good actors participate in such a lousy movie which is so slow, empty and boring.

I mentioned drawn-out because that's its main flaw - it's too long.

The movie actually gets surprisingly worse towards then end when the historical events of the draft insurrection are slapped on like a slide show as to compensate for the lack of plot.

Although two and a half hours long it is not a film that drags because of some of the brilliant performances on show especially from Daniel Day Lewis and Leornardo De Caprio also the story is gripping which is why the ending is such a let down.

The acting in the film is sublime, particularly, Daniel Day Lewis, who portrays 'The Butcher' in a truly fantastic way, and makes it extremely enjoyable to watch his menacing character.

Jay Cocks, the ghostwriter behind the oscar sweeping Titanic (1997), has not used many of the events in the book, but only one as a platform to spin a cliched, boring Titanic-like tale.

Really, Henry Thomas, and etc., the direction of Scorsese is competent, more is expected of this great director, but I found the slow pace, and tiring at times very, Gangs of New York is a good movie, with beautiful photography, good costumes, excellent cast, more is too long, and has a merely average pace.

David Hemmings is enjoyable in his Darth Vader cameo and a sufficient quota of erotic images are strategically placed to keep the audience from falling asleep in the third act.

The ever so reliable Scorsese can be counted upon to paint a stunning picture of one of America's most turbulent periods.

2 the excruciatingly boring "love story" between the diCaprio and Diaz characters.

His performance is so unbelievably enjoyable that the audience becomes more excited to see him on the screen than the protagonist, Amsterdam Vallon (played by Leonardo DiCaprio).

I thought the movie itself was very good from a cinematic standpoint but a little slow at times.

For the first half, for all the bloodshed and slowness, it's a strangely comfortable experience, like getting on a suburban train and finding yourself in a Pullman Car.

It was too long, had too many tedious plot lines, and was the movie based on religion, nativity in the U.

At 2hrs 45 minutes, it is too long.

A wonderfully non-happy and pointless ending puts all the previous squabbles into perspective with a glorious montage rounding off an extraordinary effort.

For the rest: a far to beautiful Cameron Diaz for the female role (people surely did not look this healthy in those days), bad special effects and photography, a very slow story, uninteresting development of the script and also very predictable.

Gone are MS's trademark flourishes (fluid camerawork, rapid editing, freeze-frame) only to be replaced with a dull flat style that, when coupled with the badly-written and ill-judged story, only serves to make the film a total bore.

So with all of these distracting elements to take you out of the story, you're left with a generally uninteresting and untrue story about characters you could care less about.

There were several moments that were drawn out and could have been either shortened or cut out of the movie due to their insignificance to the story line.

Waste of time and money .

" As a director, Scorcese is always pondering the deep questions about human existence & presenting it onscreen in a terribly compelling way.

I warn other potential viewers that it may be too slow for some.

Regarding the first point - "epic" can mean sweeping and engaging, or it can be a polite way of saying "really frigging long".

It's ultra-violent, pointless, childish and partly plain bad.

all solid, intense performances.

Very entertaining.

The film is awesomely compelling from start to finish.

In between, the movie is a terribly boring collection of predictable, useless and at times completely wasted violence.

Absorbing.

All said and done though "Gangs" is a highly entertaining movie with well executed, brutal fight scenes, lavish set and costume design and an acting masterclass from Daniel Day-Lewis.

i actually didnt plan on seeing this movie, but my sister dragged me to the theater were we both awaited a great disappoinment.

For the rest of the film, I found myself being bored with what was going on on screen.

A fascinating journey of New York City in 1863.

The setting is pretty dull, too many people fill the screen, and there's violence, and pretty gratuitous violence at that.

Suspenseful and weary .

The overall story that develops is dull as can be.

It's a dull, one dimensional movie, that failed to create the kind of atmosphere I was expecting.

DiCaprio and Diaz are dull, unsexy and unmemorable.

It is dull in its shallow dourness.

go out and see this entertaining movie.

Despite its missteps, it is compelling and engaging, provocative and thoughtful, and above all an incredible feat of movie-making.

A stunning and powerful classic .

It gets boring now and then.

The costume and dress of the time was visually stunning.

It just dragged on and on with no end in sight.

My opinion of this one isn't that forceful, but I thought it was an entertaining movie.

Desperately, the writers turn up the heat in a contrived romantic subplot between DiCaprio's Amsterdam and Diaz's Jenny to compensate for their colorless hero.

Diaz' role was pointless and only really a token love interest within the movie.

All in all, an entertaining and well-done film which is unfortunately dragged downwards in quality by various Hollywood-like qualities.

"Gangs of New York" was in my opinion a great movie and entertaining to watch till the very end.

There's a good movie lurking somewhere in this script as the story of the Draft Riots is historically compelling.

Don't waste your time!!!!

Gangs' ending was too predictable.

The one thing other than the opening seen worth watching is Daniel Day Lewis, make a movie called Bill the Butcher and I will be there on opening day.

In addition to that, or perhaps in spite of that, this movie is boring, too.

Soundtrack:it's a slow version of a song of U2.

I dont mind being bored by films , its not mu film and I'm just an ignorant observer i know that .

This slice of American History was fascinating the first time I saw it; then I went back to the theater to see it again .

*Spoilers*Clocking in at an obese two hours and forty minutes, Gangs of New York is epic, sumptuous, confused and boring.

Diaz (Charlie's angels) gives the best performance of her career as thief Jenny and her on screen performance alongside Di Caprio is good, despite the dialogue and situation a bit of a cliché.

Yes the movie was long, but was still very enjoyable.

On the one hand, Amsterdam bore too lightly the Orestian imperative to revenge his father, and on the other had no Shakespearian qualms of conscience.

This is a drawn-out story of the battle of the Irish to be accepted in NY.

If Robert De Niro can get an Oscar for a breathtaking performance in a Scorsese movie (Raging Bull), why can Scorsese himself win one.

For the several past reviews on IMDb have said negative comments, that the film is boring, has bad acting and has a horrible story.

The detail of the sets and incredible cinematography by Michael Ballhaus is absolutely stunning and even when the narrative pace slows, Scorsese's powerful vision never ceases to amaze.

Length + Violence = Boredom .

Personally, I felt the end was handled rather well as it was firstly unexpected and also powerful and poignant.

"Gangs of New York" is a stunning visual spectacle,a complete triumph.

An enormously entertaining epic that is profound.

Overall Gangs of New York is still better than your average film and well worth a look but I was left empty and disappointed by the finale.

My friends and I all agree, it was the worst movie we`ve seen in cinemas for the last 8 years.

Nominated for 10 Oscars, Martin Scorsese's period drama brings a tale of vengeance, loyalty and honour to vibrant light with a dramatic tale involving stunning performances, effects, direction and cinematography.

After a grotesque battle at the start of this film, the movie takes an awkward turn into a slow drama in which Vallon goes to work for his fathers murderer Bill The Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis) and then begins to plan against him.

However, outstanding acting and a relatively interesting storyline paired with exciting action takes you back in time to the battles between the several gangs in New York City in the mid to late 19th century.

This is due to the very poor editing (which also spoils the rest of the film) making the fight sequences dull and unmoving instead of powerful and masterful, like in Raging Bull or even Ridley Scott's Gladiator.

With the melding of fiction and history, Scorsese brought a confusing New York to life, that correct me if I'm wrong, I don't remember it being blown up?

***spoilers***The plot was as cliche ridden as it gets - the avenging son, the bad guy with a warped code of honour, the feisty floozy love interest who has history with the bad guy, the double-crossing friend...

But Daniel Day-Lewis gave an absolutely incredible performance and one that I believe to be his best he just sinks himself into this despicable and racist character who's able to be entertaining while at the same time terrifying and never leaves the audiences mind.

Daniel Day-Lewis is riveting as Bill the Butcher, who pretty much runs the entire show.

DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!

With "winning" dialog like that, what ever made me think it was trite?!

riveting film based on real people and real events.

The music theme by U-2-uninspiring.

The first two thirds were pretty uninteresting, as if they had kept only what was needed for the plot (and even then there were some pretty big jumps in logic).

His moustache dominates a film that otherwise lacks anything other than random mayhem, unlikeable characters and a predictable showdown.

Exciting epic .

Gangs of New York is an ambitious and fascinating revenge tale by Martin Scorsese featuring some supremely memorable performances by a talented cast.

The movie, though, on the whole, drags you down with boredom.

It's a long drawn out straight-line which left me zero ability to share any sort of affinity with the characters or their lives.

Dull.

Either a character is fascinating and adds to the world Scorsese makes or is just there to be there.

'Gangs of New York' is long and boring, with no redeeming qualities at all.

This is a film that wants to ask questions of an American audience and ends up confusing them while I really don't know what non-American audiences are meant to get out of it at all.

But here the aim of that opening is to attract the average viewer into making him want to see the movie further by calling upon his vilest instincts, supported by a repetitive music to to prevent him from thinking and exercising his judgment.

Gone is the gritty realism which has been a trademark of his work, and replaced by formulaic acting and storyline.

Love interest Cameron Diaz is only interesting when she's picking pockets, but otherwise an utter waste of time.

) hoping to spice up the tasteless and banal life-on-the-street soup.

This is a cinematic piece with extreme desire to stay true to the historic events that once occurred, and has posh touches of Hollywood glamour that makes is all the more entertaining.

An exciting, powerful, drama.

A strange combination of really great production values and an interesting, heretofore untold story about the American immigrant experience and cheesy production values during the climactic Draft Riot and a boring and uninvolving love story.

The story follows a man named Amsterdam Vallon (Leo DiCaprio), who as a child, in the beginning, witnesses his father, Priet Vallon (Liam Neeson), brutally murdered in a vicious and highly intense brawl of hundreds of men slaughtering one another when the streets and the snow in 1846.

The romantic sub-plot was, also, unbelievably predictable.

As it was it dragged in many stages and somehow seemed blurred.

So when people bash a movie for being boring or didn't meet their expectations, that is lame.

Disappointing bland thuggery .

Sadly, I didn't even waste my time watching the "Special Features" because the "Main Feature" was already waste of time enough.

_Gangs of New York_ is a very enjoyable picture; Scorsese turning to history is a welcome change, and the realisation of the period is wonderfully rich in detail.

Nonetheless, I found it to be powerful and gripping throughout.

It is a drawn out saga that takes too long to start, too long to get anywhere and too long to finish.

Three Hours of Savage Butchery...

The visual effects of the film are quite stunning and in this respect it truly is an epic.

I fell asleep shortly after the beginning of the 2nd act so you might say that I am not entitled to write a review on a film that I haven't even finished.

His monologue to Amsterdam in the middle of the film, delivered while draped in an American flag, is a stunning piece of acting, and shows a deep and infinitely complex characterization.

Brilliant, captivating, exciting .

The story was even involving despite the time old revenge thy family cliche.

Unfortunately, the story is soooo unengaging and the formulaic I was bored.

This film is captivating, thoroughly enjoyable, and destined to become a classic of film lovers and critics alike.

This film is compelling.

) and you can step out for Chinese while the movie drags its ass toward its inevitable and tedious conclusion.

It doesn't compare to Goodfellas or The Departed, but it's worth watching.

On the plus side were some wonderful characters, some great acting (especially Day-Lewis), and beautiful, evocative sets.

There is the occasional snatch of nice dialogue, or intense scene.

A beautiful, sweeping story of love, hate, and revenge, set against the sumptuous background of Civil War era New York City is stylish, fanciful, intriguing and satisfying.

It is a truly gripping and poetic moment in the film, and is deeply moving.

So dull .

Decent acting, boring story .

The history of that period, of urban gang life and unrest, really stands out as the second most interesting part of the film to me, and it was really disappointing that Scorsese had to tack on a dull revenge/romance plot to justify spending the money to bring the period to life.

but it's difficult to tell when the movie tries to say something about what really happened and when it just tries to be entertaining.

One of the most boring things I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot of boring films (my wife's fault), but this one takes the prize.

THERE is a particularly intense concentration on the wanton and senseless violence and destruction that is invariably the product of the Mob Mentality.

overall very good movie, the fighting scenes were very primitive but the historical background as well as a thought out plot made the movie well worth the watch.

There is no comfort to find in the razor thin plot, which is unveiled in the first minutes, nor in the characters, who are all competing for a spot on the bottom step of the morality ladder, nor in the dialogs, which are empty.

After the murder, the storyline just dragged on to being totally pointless to where it no longer had a story.

The nearly three hour film is breathtaking in its scope and attention to detail, immersing the viewer completely in the brutal streets of 1860s New York City.

I realise this is a very negative review so far and I admitt the movie had its good points, the fight at the beginning was well done and the first hour looked promising but after that it justed dragged and was letdown by its end.

I was sitting there and this intense feeling overtook me while watching.

One of the main complaints I've heard was how "overly long" Gangs of New York was and how "absolutley nothing happened" until the end.

Worst movie I have ever seen .

The first half of the movie was so slow and boring, mainly because of boring acting, that I had to watch it three times before I got through it, luckily the second half is better, not because acting improves but because more things happen.

Unbearable .

Worst movie ever.

I have to state from the beginning that I enjoyed it very much—perhaps enormously, and the impression was certainly positive.

The art direction, costumes and sets are all noteworthy, but the plot and the performances of the talented actors are all muddled in the tedious and drawn-out storyline.

Scorsese delivered his most visually stunning film to date with his 2002 feature, Gangs of New York.

However Gangs of New York seemed to fail at all of these except boring the heck out of me.

zzzz .

"What a stunning performance.

It's good to look at and there's enough plot development that it is entertaining.

*SPOILER WARNING FOLLOWS*The most ancient and simplest of plots, avenging a slain father, ruined by a self-indulgent, tedious and wandering script.

Overly long and full of tiresome historical pieces, the film lacks the gruelling and torturous finale it deserved and presented too many careless loose ends (Cameron Diaz becoming a non-essential lump of furniture within the tale).

" Scorsese's key accomplishment is in realizing that, and using his inimitable visual skill to create a fascinating, engrossing film that seems far shorter than its three hours.

Parts of it are really boring.

Scorsese is showing no evidence of lacking in his more recent stages as a director, in fact The Departed recently won Best Picture and Gangs of New York is still an enjoyable film, albeit not great, for the best part.

High production values mean zilch when the story barely holds your attention due to there being a multitude of chaotic characters and the environment being too very dull (and again, chaotic).

Yet this is a very modern film, and perhaps a more classical approach may have benefited the film which is ultimately unfocused, but effortlessly thrilling.

A Compelling Watch.

The movie is more informative than entertaining.

Saw the film yesterday and really enjoyed it.

Gangs is littered with Scorsese trademarks – the steady cam shots that swoop around Vallon as he strides out to meet Bill dominate the opening scene, but their impact is disappointingly weakened by the slo-mo and speeded-up footage of the otherwise breathtaking fight sequence.

All i saw, however, was Scorcese trying to give pointless violence an even more pointless point.

But the film is long and tedious at parts.

Boring as Hell!.

I probably would have walked out from the theater and the video on special features didn't interest me either.

Second, the pacing is slow and plodding.

The riots and action are extremely brutal, but very entertaining.

The use of music is striking, with old tunes mixed for a weird and evocative sound.

The great climactic action scene is rather dry, nuanced, and thoughtlessly executed.

My God what a dull film!

You don't savor his death the way you would most bad guys in his position, because the hero, as played by DiCaprio, is really rather bland.

This is quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen.

The movie builds to its inevitable climax slowly, but every second is fascinating.

Big cast, expensive sets, but disjointed and rambling.

too long and pretentious .

Even though it hat some great parts, that deserve to be recognized, it also hat some doubtful scenes, a few dull characters and a lag of originality.

Too long, too stereotyped, too predictable.

The first hour of the film is good, but it soon fizzles into a predictable plot and thereafter becomes a Peter Pan vs.

Because Scorsese doesn't have to juggle a lot of disparate, clunky plot threads, he can give this film what it needs: a colorful, fascinating palate of well-drawn characters and impressive visuals.

I would definitely think twice if you tend to get bored easily.

Overall, a good flick, definitely not Scorsese's best, but definitely worth watching.

I enjoyed it, I was immersed throughout and was fascinated by a period of history which I knew very little about.

I agree with other posters about how boring this film was.

The fact that this part of American history has been swept under the rug for most publicly-educated citizens makes it hard to follow and even harder to swallow.

Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is fascinating.

Scorsese tells his fascinating story well, eventually weaving the larger war story into the mix.

The plot and story are just amazing, absolutely thoroughly entertaining.

Next shot: his glass is EMPTY !!

If what you like is gratuitous, pointless violence and gore, are disturbed by things such as thoughtfulness, point or plot, then this movie is for you.

A method actor from Britain in such a stunning performance of an American native; Daniel Day-Lewis really is the show stealer.

Dreary .

I guess you could call it a caricature, but a definitely fascinating one.

This was mainly because is was also hard to follow.

Yes the film was long, but I didn't feel bored at all, the story dragged you into this era and subtly engulfed you in its characters and relevance of it to our every day lives.

It's somewhat well-paced, but I ended up being bored in the last half hour or so, and downright disliking the very end.

I cleared my head and watched it in an empty theater.

The costuming and set design are fascinating.

One, it takes way too long for Vallon to get his revenge, and two, Daniel Day Lewis is by far the most interesting character in the film.

Instead of a movie that is trying to be everything--a romance, a history lesson, a revenge thriller--I would have enjoyed it much better if the scope would have been narrowed down a bit.

***Before I start I'd like to say that it's not that I really didn't like the film, it's a fascinating bit of history that America really buries away really well.

Usually his characters are so devious, so criminal, so complex, I was genuinely surprised to learn that the only thing complex about this film was the 19th century politics, which by the end of the film became downright boring.

This is another fascinating visual film with great sets, costumes, color and camera-work.

It's also a compelling narrative about a young man trying to find his identity during turbulent times and how he will only grow if his people grow with him, if he leads them.

The drama unfolding in the background often seems far more fascinating than what Scorsese decides to focus on, with the main revenge drama especially predictable and clichéd, populated by characters that fail to engage either our sympathy or (with only one exception) grab our attention.

Boring, predictable, impossible .

This movie is absolutely breathtaking.

So, in the interest of brevity, I will just say(a) "Gangs" is a true epic in the tradition of "Once Upon a Time in America" and "The Godfather" trilogy; (b) The acting is excellent and Daniel Day-Lewis WILL receive an Academy Award; (c) Thought-provoking to say the least --- I will be doing some online research into the how accurately certain elements of New York's history are portrayed in this movie; (d) The camera angles and cinemagraphic techniques used in "Gangs" are innovative and ground-breaking, reminding me of Orson Welles' work on "Citizen Kane" (the CGI and matte work on this film are breathtaking); and (e) As with many great works of art, the flaws are glaring: major gaps in story-telling, especially within single scenes, coupled with what can only be described as "experimental" editing that sometimes simply does not work (in particular, the final showdown between Daniel D-L and DiCaprio).

The story is so annoying predictable and is not fun or even interesting to watch...

), superb scenary, and the sets were stunning.

Though it is packed with great scenes, like when three different men pray to the same god, each claiming his power for their own, or a long tracking shot showing Irish immigrants arriving in the harbour, becoming citizens, being signed up to fight the Civil War and boarding a ship that is unloading coffins, ‘Gangs' does begin to drag after a gripping scene at the anniversary party of the 1846 battle.

This is my reaction:Leonardo DiCaprio did pretty good in the cliché role.

Being of Irish heritage I found it quite enjoyable...

An Entertaining Extravaganza .

Others complain that it's a slow, and dully-written film.

The story is redundant and Scorcese sins his wheels over mundane characteristics of his characters that are already developed.

Yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn....

OK, the backdrop is interesting, but the main storyline is drab and somehow the two things seemed to me too much disjointed.

Broadbent particularly deserves applause for his terrifically entertaining performance as a corrupt politician who is only interested in one thing; winning.

Between those, things could get slow.

Amsterdam & Bill Butcher were fighting each other whilst I was fighting to stay awake .

Ultimately I found the film confusing, and couldn't see what Scorsese was actually trying to tell us.

I went to see this in a group of 5 people, and 2 walked out, 1 left for a cigarette and I nearly dozed off.

It is painfully slow, very bloody, with no plot to relate to (unless maybe you live in NYC).

Anyway, if you're into being served for about three hours of what could have been a good movie if they took their screenings more serious.

An engaging look into a seldom mentioned history of NYC .

What remains is a powerful, exciting and unusual work, which is undoubtedly the first must-see film of 2003.

Thoroughly Entertaining .

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.

The history while disjointed from the great book, is noticably applied in scenes.

Daniel Day Lewis was consistently brilliant, but his intense acting wasn't enough to save this flop.

The film's amazing costume design, cinematography, landmark art direction and engrossing story puts the production into an area that very few movies ever experience.

Reilly, Cara Seymour and Stephen Graham bring new meaning to the 'stage-Irish' cliché(actually the first two hardly bothered changing their accents).

Besides the fight scene at the start the rest of the film is bland without much cohesion at the end.

Intense, Unyielding, and Interesting .

Although well-paced, it may feel a bit slow at some times (its runtime is around two hours, forty minutes).

Very long and oh so boring .

It was boring from the first until the last minute!!!!

I was hoping it would engage, excite, or entice me, but it really just made me wish I could get that three hours of my life back.

9/10 on my personal scale for this strong and entertaining film.

An intriguing film that captures you from the onset and refuses to let go until the closing credits are rolling.

Banality at its best.

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

The film suffers somewhat from being predictable; it holds very few surprises, partly due to it being fairly formulaic.

Also, these "epic" period pieces tend to rely on authentic scenery\clothes\language\customs to sweep you up in the story, hoping that your "wow" will let you overlook the clichéd characters or the "good-guy-bad-guy" simplicity or the predictable storyline.

Absolute boredom.

One critic said breathtaking...

He was so intense and gave a wonderful performance.

While the West is a place of vast empty spaces, home to the lonely Indian of Fraser's `The End of the Trail,' Scorsese's East is a teeming warren of pugnacious immigrant tribes stepping on each other's toes, with open warfare avoided only by a brutal pecking order where every man exacts his `due and proper' from the man below.

It starts up slow, it gets slower, and ends really fast, too fast.

There are films out there that are so intense that it's like a pit bull grabbing at your neck and swinging you around.

That would suit me fine considering that '90 minute revenge story' could describe any number of old kung-fu movies from Hong Kong, all of which are more entertaining than 'Gangs of New York'.

Worst Movie Ever .

Amsterdam ends up romantically linked with Jenny (Cameron Diaz) which was not only ludicrous, but also downright boring.

Worst movie ever.

Violent and pointless trawl through the gaslight NY gutter of yesteryear.

Gangs of New York was long, too long yet it was fascinating.

, and what do we get - an overblown Freudian psychodrama that says more about Scorsese's Oedipal confusion than it does about New York City's so-called history.

I can only assume that not much has changed, thanks to much more entertaining movies like 'Escape From New York' and a little known Italian movie called '1990: The Bronx Warriors'.

What is remarkable is the way he carves such a compelling tale out of what is essentially a spectacularly long game of who will blink first.

The editing is done well but some of the plot does seem disjointed.

Maybe it was due to high expectations, but I found this movie boring.

First reason: the story is a cliché: good guys vs bad guys.

Also, because the set is so authentic you are always aware it IS a set and this stops you suspending disbelief and prevents you becoming immersed in the tale.

24 years later he still made the movie and that says a lot about the man and also why the movie is such an entertaining extravaganza.

Inaccurate but entertaining .

But the problem is that we are clearly supposed to like and admire this psychotic, sadistic, xenophobic, racist bully, as even the Di Caprio character does ; indeed the film is full of the rival gang-leaders' pathologically intense homoerotic attraction towards one another.

In Gangs of New York, he recounts one of its lesser-known but intensely fascinating chapters, in what was a long-cherished project.

The film opens with a stunning set-piece in a snowscape in New York's Five Points in which the Natives, led by Daniel Day-Lewis, overpower the immigrants, known as the Dead Rabbits.

This was one of the worst movies I have seen in years; the first time in 10 years I was about to leave the whole time.

What a waste of time!

But the story is really hard to follow.

Guy next to me fell asleep .

Boring and Awful .

I find the extreme class divides between both stories fascinating.

If you haven't been to see it yet, save your money and wait for the video!

Waste Of Time .

it's a fascinating film, with wonderful production values and a fantastic story.

His portrait of the neighborhood crime lord and local butcher is stunning and is the absolute best reason to watch this movie again and again.

I was interesting and thrilling.

Scorsese brings to his film a vigour, an imagination and an epic sense of history that are all too often lacking in modern film-making with its remakes, its sequels and its formulaic movies-by-numbers.

It helps to know NYC well to relate to the history and geograhical references; Scorcese blends a bit of fiction into a fact based story, but taken for what it is, a well told story with historical basis, it surely ranks as one of the most engrossing movies in the past months.

We have countless pointless subplots (the election, the civil war, the romance between Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz) on the way until DiCaprio finally does what he had APPARENTLY set out to do in the first place and kills Daniel Day Lewis.

Trust Scorsese to include what he feels is right - the result is a stunning, epic history of the America that gave birth to all our lives.

The story, consisting on the most cliched elements of a love triangle and a trite revenge melodrama, serves as the backdrop for Scorsese's depiction of the most squalid aspects of life in New York City; and from that aspect, the film is a set designers dream.

Gangs of New York sculpts an intriguing detailing of society and a compelling narrative driven around the evolving nature of Leonardo DiCaprio's Amsterdam Vallon and Daniel Day-Lewis' Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting relationship with each other.

Cameron Diaz was also good in this movie, and it was an unexpected variation from a Charlie's Angel or a ditzy socialite from The Sweetest Thing.

But the sensation of ending up with nothing new is much more overwhelming than the cinematic experience, and the bad taste on your mouth becomes more and more intense, as the overlength starts picking on you.

This movie was very boring.

Martin Scorsese, one of my all-time favorite film directors, the man who brought us the amazing "Taxi Driver," the monumental "Goodfellas," the excellent "Casino," uses good, exciting camera techniques, with bright surroundings...

Stunning and any of the CGI effects were seamless.

The history of New York is fascinating, no ciy's is moreso.

This is nearly 3 hours of confusing characterisation, and sets that look like sets.

The film itself was so disjointed, I'm hoping for better on the DVD - and I'm hoping I can cut out Diaz' scenes.

I left the theater thinking that was an incredible movie now why didnt i like it.

It did not feel like a long, boring three hour movie.

An absolutely top class direction by Scorcese and a memorable performance by Daniel Day Lewis, for, well, a plain and uninteresting story.

Although lengthy, the story is consistently engaging with the characters evolving and interacting with each other.

But it's certainly a good film, and it's worth watching.

Visually stunning the film is marred - and mired - by the protagonist of Leonardo di Caprio.

The Gangs of New York is boring, long, has no exciting plot or development, bad acting, set and make-up, and is so inconsistent in its message (is there one?

The very premise of the movie was fascinating enough to place it on the must-see list of millions of people.

ridiculously contrived.

The script is fairly self-righteous and just a bit too dull in my opinion, making Gangs of New York one to miss.

Overall very slow, rather tedious, film.

When you think Scorsese and actors like Lewis, Broadbent and Neeson you tend to think that it'll be worth watching at the very least.

I found him to be one note and boring.

Scorsese again delivers a first class movie filled with excellent performances and stunning sets which by far offset weaknesses with the plot and indeed the historical accuracy of the piece.

Visually Stunning .

At this point I was sure that I would get the climatactic ending that I wanted and when the two gangs finally(it did take longer than was really necessary) marched into the streets I was on the edge of my seat.

The plot was good, but was hard to follow.

Boring .

The story is very weak, predictable and extremely childish.

I found this incredible job of Scorsese useful for understand the origin of the USA Citizens ,with an historical dramatization of things really happen, The narrative structure help to bypass dangerus yawn at in the end there are any artificious for make a sense,or better for help us to hate mr.Cutting...

Compared to something like Titanic, where the story of Jack and Rose was the main bulk, but suddenly the ship began to sink (and if you think that's a spoiler, you really need to attend more history lessons) – at least in that instance the main storyline continued to unfold with the sinking lending new opportunities for plot-points, rather than James Cameron saying `let's forget about them for half an hour and do a bit of directorial self-indulgence'.

Not because of the plot, it isn't that difficult to follow, but Scorsese had spent so long trying to create the tension between Amsterdam and Bill and appeared to either forget about it, or get bored with it and move onto something new – it just didn't make sense.

The rest of the disjointed and completely UNBELIEVABLE trivia going on in the movie (any scene containing Decaprio or what's her name...

DiCaprio (very believable, more so than 'Titanic') and Diaz perform just fine to create a compelling conflict.

The actors do a good job of moving the slow plot forward.

Most of the dialogue was contrived, constantly awkward and at times extremely uncomfortable.

i figured it would be another popcorn movie, something simply entertaining and that would be all.

the pulsating high school marching band style snare drums that continuously play to a fast paced beat actually begins to give you a headache before the film is finished.

Daniel Day-Lewis on the other hand was absolutely awe inspiring.

The characters were drawn out and given blood only to have them put into a cartoon fantasy which ruined the foundations of the back-story for me.

Unfortunately, it's a Scorsese film, so we have to sit through sequences that could have been done shorter and still conveyed the same meaning and power, we have to sit through plenty of pretentious garbage (although here it's not that awful), and far too many sweeping shots of, well, everything.

My thoughts on this when it finished was that it was an over-long, bloated, unconvincing bore of a film where the only good thing about it was Daniel Day-Lewis.

Perhaps the uninspired presentation of Amsterdam and Jenny, contrasted with the powerful portrayal of Bill, reflects an overall problem with American cinema: we have become fascinated with evil, and regard goodness as dull.

But the story itself is boring, with very few twists to keep one engaged.

Even though the pace is slow, you spend the time admiring the sheer quality of the experience.

),as well an absorbing feel to the time and place setting.

Another wasted opportunity to present a story of epic proportions, dragged down by the "suits", who have finally managed to geld one of the true giants of Cinema.

Reilly, everyone else bored me to death.

That alone would have made the movie worth watching.

Too confusing, too uninspired, no rational basis for any motivations.

Indeed, fact spills into fiction during the thrilling denouement when the showdown between Bill and Amsterdam is overtaken by events around them.

For a more detailed and much more entertaining look at this time and these issues watch Ric Burns' "New York: A Documentary Film.

" He is absolutely riveting, one of the most interesting "villains" I have ever seen on film.

The gore goes from entertaining in the start to offensively disgusting in the end.

However, Daniel Day-Lewis, as William 'Bill the Butcher' Cutting, is absolutely stunning.

A well-paced, entertaining-enough historical blockbuster that lacks the narrative and thematic maturity set by other films.

This film is a propaganda piece of the anti-American, anti-Protestant, and anti-war faction of the far left in Hollywood.

The plot went nowhere.

Overall the story is neither very engaging, most because you don't feel anything for Di Caprio's character, Amsterdam.

What a self-indulgent snorefest this one was.

Perhaps I'm still missing something but this is far from a great, interesting or entertaining movie in my opinion.

Perhaps it should have been the four hours that Scorsese apparently wanted it to be, it might have worked better, but the 2 3/4 hours that it is currently playing at are a waste of time.

DiCaprio's character seems to have no other goal and thus comes off to me not only secretive and brooding, but largely uninteresting.

My girlfriend and I looked at each other about 2:10 into this 2:40 waste of time and sighed simultaneously, saying "This is such a bad movie".

But the plot meanders, the situations are contrived, at best, and the only actor able to rise above the muck to leave an impression is the inimitable Daniel Day-Lewis, returning to the big screen for the first time in half a decade.

The brothel scenes, the "uptown" scenes, and some of the scenes in the catacombs struck me as slow and superfluous.

All they had to do is cut most of the scenes out and keep the entertaining ones.

I generally love Scorsese movies, but Gangs of New York is a rambling, slow piece of work, with DiCaprio looking totally lost and definitely miscast.

We found it excruciating slow and painful to watch.

It was pointless and boring.

There are some gripping scenes like the knife throwing scene and the fight between the butcher and Amsterdam.

Two fantastic scenes that contain so much more than meets he eye but why the pointless scenes are included anyway is beyond me.

While fortunes have been spent on the setting (very convincing too) what goes on in the foreground is backside achingly dull.

Scorsese has stolen three hours of my life that I will never recover.

I left about 1/3 of the way through from sheer boredom...

Too blustery and overblown to be entertaining .

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!

Annoying Acted and Predictable.. Bad Script.. and Obvious color scheme problems when watching the film .

I'm sorry but this was the worst movie that I have ever seen.

Forget the waste of money.

Intense, Violent, and a Rough Time Period in History .

There was an initial shock-value from seeing close shots of hacking and slashing, but all that blood flying around quickly became plain boring, at best a bit nauseating, and only succeeded in reducing the 'feel' of the movie to that of some kind of cheap horror movie for a significant portion of the film.

Continuous bloodshed resulted from intense racial and religious tensions.

It looks great but it's dull, badly written, badly acted, surprisingly badly directed and totally unfocused.

"Gangs of New York" was a fascinating movie.

The whole thing with Bill having a crystal eye was confusing and slightly unrealistic.

In the end, Gangs of New York is kind of boring.

All in all, it was not a great movie, save your money.

Generally a waste of time and much ado about nothing.

While the movie itself was hard to follow due to the jumping of scenes, its depiction of a key point in the Civil War helps to make the details memorable.

Pound for pound one of the worst movies ever .

But the whole thing dragged rather in the second half - and Di Caprio recovers *remarkably* quickly from a knife wound in the stomach!

The high quantity of characters made it them hard to follow.

2 Hours and 40 Minutes of boredom.

It could have been so much better; the street battles are fantastic, the music is excellent and the general atmosphere is compelling, it's just a pity about the accents.

In "The Count of Monte Cristo" fashion, he befriends "The Butcher" and becomes an adversary on the outside, while he romances a pick-pocket, Jenny, (a very snoring and predictable love story) played by a very red-headed Cameron Diaz.

This movie starts out under developed and boring in my opinion.

Day-Lewis is the only one worth watching in this so called film.

Lastly, the film's plot was gripping and had an ending which was pretty satisfying.

What a pretentious pile of absolute guff.

The racism towards blacks n irish are intense and genuine in their essence.

Compelling epic .

Thats what I thought of this movie,,and the fact that it was way too long.

The main drawback is the story itself, which is basically just a trite revenge melodrama all gussied up in fancy period clothes.

It was really, really boring and predictable.

The love story becomes predictable and uninteresting.

Shots so evocative of lives and loves past in the world's greatest city.

From the first "Taxi Driver" till the ultimate best "Goodfellas" all of his movies were at the very least super entertaining.

The plot was pathetic and entirely predictable.

But what excited me most was how much I left the theater eager to discuss the film.

Flaws like the much confusing structure of the story, that doesn't seem at all balanced, or that love story that turns out cold and uninspiring.

You can even bear the pointless diversion of the Diaz/di Caprio romance...

The script is a bit of a mess, the acting is patchy and the plot is boring, the cinematography and directing is much better though.

I twice fell asleep briefly in this film, which could have had an hour chopped out of it and it would have still been boring.

The premise is an intriguing one, a battle over the 5 points in NY between those of the mainland and Irish immigrants set in the 1860's.

Cameron Diaz makes up for it with her best performance in a serious role, but the star is Daniel Day-Lewis as the Butcher, and he was as superb as he always is in an utterly breathtaking and outstanding performance.

Overlong, not very historically accurate, and boring.

This one is violent for the sake of violence it seems to me in an effort to take focus off the fact that it's a turgidly told, thoroughly predictable and boring story.

Of course, the Shakespearian aspect of the story can't avoid some stereotypical un-Scorsesian situations, the revenge story, and the romance with Jenny (Cameron Diaz) the pick pocket expert, which I have always thought to be too pretty for that role, and Amsterdam not the most colorful character of the film (nothing against Leo's performance, but Daniel Day-Lewis puts so much charisma and energy in his role, he'd make anyone look dull)Fortunately, these details don't hurt the film; the writing is sometimes so good it elevates the traditional Scorsesian dilemma to epic proportions.

I just couldn´t find other feelings for his character other than boredom.

DiCaprio looks intense.

very bad and boring .

Most of the film was filled with uninteresting dialog and plot twists.

The true story of the unrest in NY at the time shown is a fascinating one and despite some shortcomings Scorsese does well.

I actually got very involved in the characters and the plot until the end which I won't go into too much detail about, but is way too confusing.

Feb 2010 edit: I saw it again presently and it still is a fascinating movie.

Phenomenal, Intense, and Epic .

It is just a boring movie about one guy wanting to do in another and taking two hours to do it.

There's still much to appreciate though, and the ever so reliable Scorsese can be counted upon to paint a stunning picture of one of America's most turbulent periods.

Scorcese insists on making his movies too long and too slow .

The opening of the movie is as intense as for example the one of Saving Private Ryan.

The story is thin, the violence is inappropriately cartoonish, there seems to be a lot more style than substance and the message moves beyond ambiguous into the arena of confusion.

Result: very boring 2 hours and 40 minutes, when this film could have been done in just 2 hours.

It's incredibly long, dull, and you'll feel like you need a long shower after watching it.

The Only Martin Scorsese Film worth watching...

The set (after all there really is only one major set) is stunning albeit a little clean, but hey - send me a postcard of it and I'll save three hours of my life.

His Bill is both recognizably human and a full bore, moustache-twirling villain.

For a story with a vivid structure, and interesting twist of plot, grips you with the characters for around 3 hours of an exhausting process and a punching clymax.

The only reason that I give this movie even a 5 rating is that Daniel Day-Lewis gives an absolutely riveting performance as William the Butcher.

the screenplay for gangs of new york ignored a huge chunk of the important facts and events of this short period and replaced them with a predictable and uninteresting plot.

His approach is matched by the cast, who are mostly enjoyable despite lacking depth.

)Having heard 'good things' about Scorcese's films, and being incredibly bored, I went to see this film...

From the glorious costumes and sets to the extremely evocative music, Scorsese has re-defined verisimilitude.

At 2 hrs 40 min the movie feels tedious and lifeless and loses most of the interest as the plots builds up slowly, it does a good job giving the perspective of the new york of the past and the daily lives of gangs .

If I hadn't decided to see this at my local movie restaurant/pub, I would have walked out.

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.

I want three hours of my life back, so I can watch paint dry.

But alas I came out of the theatre feeling empty and almost cheated of my money.

I will not spoil anything so I will end with this, it is a very good movie and worth the watch :)

8 1/2 to me is very tedious , it is also a masterpiece critique of the artistic process .

The start of the movie was slow and the plot seemed to jump around a lot, making it hard to follow at times.

A Big Bloody Boring Mess.

At a very slow (almost) 3 hours, the movie just keeps going and going with bothersome inconsistencies popping up all over the place, among many other problems.

For two and a half hours we are dragged through relentlessly gruelling scenes that pay no purpose to the film, and then the last ten minutes, the most vital point of the entire motion picture, the point where we are so hyped, pumped and ready for a big payoff, anything big, something big...

However, there are many plus points in this film that make it entirely watchable and entertaining.

So boring.

If a story line can catch your interest then the time can fly by, this story line was just so excessive and so overly violent and chock full of character quirks and craziness that time slogged on slow as a mouse in molasses.

it's just plain boring.

It was just boring dialogue with a few scenes of graphic violence here and there.

Mad, bad and deadly dull to watch .

How's that for a rousing start for a movie review?

It's hard to believe Gangs of New York was as boring as it was.

Not only did the director cast some pretty great actors, the plot alone was well worth watching.

It took far too long for Leo to be found out by Day-Lewis and even when it happened it wasn't used to it's greatest possible potential.

The groundwork for this unoriginal revenge pic is laid out in the 10 minutes, and yet the viewer must suffer through 2 hours of predictable verbal and physical battle to finally witness the inevitable conclusion?

" I left the theater.

The acting was excellent and the story compelling.

Too long, too boring don't bother .

Martin Scorsese - practically a god to a certain generation of film-goers - has here made his most anonymous, bland, banal piece of work.

It had a very adrenaline pumping element.

Visually Stunning Epic that didn't quite cut the masterpiece mustard.

I felt the movie as a whole was a enjoyable movie watching experience.

I mostly just remember the same feeling I had when I saw another boring movie with Leonardo DeCaprio, Titanic: "When is this stupid movie going to END?

The other major highlight of the film, besides Day-Lewis's riveting performance, is Martin Scorcese's extraordinary directing.

But it is still hard to follow.

) and you can step out for Chinese while the movie drags its ass toward its inevitable and tedious conclusion.

Nothing happening kept me interested at all.

It is a good film, and the plot is enjoyable up until the final half an hour in which Scorsese's reach extends too far.

Over all the movie was too long, slow in most places, and even comical.

Overall:Very boring movie.

The only thing keeping it going was the absolutely riveting performance by Daniel Day Lewis.

Far too long.

I still rated it with an 8, because in spite of all my complaining, it was a film certainly worth watching.

It certainly isn't among Scorsese's best work and there are a variety of minor flaws that do threaten to drag the film down, but I think the things it is good at are things that is extremely good at and its a film that remains gripping despite its sheer size.

DiCaprio, whose boyish and bland demeanor is much more suited for the teenage antihero of "Catch Me If You Can", is completely lost here, and could have trashed the entire film had Day-Lewis not been so strong.

Simply breathtaking scenery, costumes and the storyline.

A younger Scorsese would've realize the more compelling story belonged to Bill the Butcher (Day-Lewis) and NOT the horribly underwritten Amsterdam (DiCaprio).

Violence can be absolutely fascinating.

'Gangs of New York' ended up being one of the most boring movies I've ever seen.

First of all, the movie is way too long.

His character's sadistic qualities are established in the first 15 minutes of the film which renders at least 30 subsequent minutes of film dull and redundant.

A stunning epic triumph .

From Golden Globe winning, and Oscar nominated director Martin Scorsese, this period crime drama is a very stylised film and quite riveting.

On the plus side,I suppose,there is Day Lewis's engaging performance to bear in mind (he did win the oscar,didn't he?

That film is also large in scope with a director's passion for a historical setting and attention to detail that clearly shows, but the narrative is much less Hollywood, more intimate, unconventional yet engrossing.

Still, the movie has it fails, but it was still worth watching.

Overall, many segments in the movie come across like excerpts from a very good piece of literature: detailed and completely engrossing.

Or Michael Mann's Insider, which has compelling story with its grit, and no need for axe and cleaver mayhem (see Braveheart for that).

Regardless of the flaws in this movie (too much violence, for one), you must see it for Day-Lewis' thrilling performance.

By the time the Third Act final rolls in, boredom has spread and Scorsese's raw desire to leave nothing out becomes a hideous nuisance.

I thought this movie was intensely boring.

But it's too long, poorly edited, and thematically confusing.

Gangs Of New York is an over-dramatised but compelling story of the struggle to make New York City into a place of law and decency.

What isn't accurate is tedious things that actually make the film better, and more entertaining.

I thought it was a total waste of time.

Nonetheless, Daniel Day Lewis is stunning in a role which could have easily become comical in the hands of a less capable actor.

For one thing it was just the same stuff throught the whole film, walking through the manhattan streets and crimes being commited by the Bad guy and loving the girl, and it just repeats itself for 3 hours of bordom.

Honestly, who cares about this story, its extremely idiotic, predictable, and cliche.

After all the delays, budget overruns and hype Gangs Of New York has become a film that seems as if it must be heralded as the last great film of the 1970s, albeit one with the shocking punctuality to arrive 20 years late, or three hours of ponderous nonsense.

Scorsese's best films are intense, focused examinations of character.

The film lacked much energy and was too long and slow.

There is no real meaning of the film, no plot.

Very entertaining,Lewis steals every scene.

Daniel Day-Lewis is amazing and the direction is stunning.

This story weaves perfectly with the action, drama and comedy and allows Scorsese to display his superb talent of portraying real problems with an entertaining exaggeration Gangs of New York should leave you thinking "wow" just watch it for fun and not to see if it's worth the hype.

Over three hours of watching Irish people fighting Irish people is not enjoyable.

Despite this i would highly recommend it as well

the movie was way too long.

An ambitious film, flawed but breathtaking .

An epic film that I found while a good and entertaining history lesson at the same time we had fun and thrill.

The movie is way too long.

small spoilersThe gripping opening scene promises what looks like an epic, starting right at the beginning with narration in the first person.

This movie had the perfect setting, a captivating atmosphere, astounding performances from all actors and actresses, an epic soundtrack, and a truly engrossing storyline.

Gangs of New York takes a fascinating look at a largely forgotten slice of American history.

The film is slow, and focuses more of the build up of characters, tension and atmosphere, and although some who are used to the more action packed, fast paced movies Hollywood has spewed out in the last decade may find it too slow to keep their interest, I actually found it fascinating, and never lost interest once throughout (which, considering it's length, is quite an achievement).

Unfortunately this movie has no plot worth speaking of.

I came out of the cinema irritated, bored to death and on the verge of suicide.

It is a classic and all who enjoyed it might want to read Herbert Asbury's book of the same title published in the last century.

Powerful and evocative .

This film nevertheless contains all of its makers trademarks, maybe its a little unsurprising, but compared to a average movie of its genre nowadays, it is well written and just plain entertaining.

Though visually stunning and very stylish, I wanted more.

Symbolism: predictable and laughable.

I don't want to spoil the movie, but after a major scene between Daniel Day-Lewis and Leonardo DiCaprio, the movie gets a little banal and dried up until one of the very last dramatic scenes.

This wannabe epic was desperately in need of a couple more rewrites before filming should have commenced in order to give it a compelling story, any strong characters or a real reason to exist in the first place.

And right now there are a lot of very high quality films out that are more action packed or otherwise faster moving that are taking the limelight.

Life is too short to spend 3 hours of it watching this movie.

Some scenes tend to get boring, I place it primarily on Cameron Diaz and some parts to Leo's acting.