User Score
7.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 297 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 33 out of 297
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. KevinM
    Feb 22, 2008
    3
    Just about everything that can go wrong with a film goes wrong here. No unifying theme or idea, poor writing and characterization with equally poor acting, terrible use of music (who the hell chose that song to play during the opening fight?), and a trite use of the twin towers at the very end. Never at any point in this movie are we offered a single reason to care about it or any of the Just about everything that can go wrong with a film goes wrong here. No unifying theme or idea, poor writing and characterization with equally poor acting, terrible use of music (who the hell chose that song to play during the opening fight?), and a trite use of the twin towers at the very end. Never at any point in this movie are we offered a single reason to care about it or any of the characters and it seems never once did they ask "why are we even making this film?" It's a purposeless and overrated flop from a very good director. Expand
  2. Haasmah
    Jul 2, 2003
    0
    Wow!!!.....this movie blows!...who gives a crap about old newyork gangs.....
  3. TrevorH.
    Aug 12, 2008
    4
    A pretty bad movie from a pretty good director. the only reason it has a four is because Daniel day lewis' performance is fantastic but the movie lacks any sort of purpose. some better editing could have cut out half this movie and at least then it wouldn't have been such a build up to nothing. "the blood stays on the blade"? lame. and what was the deal with that opening music? A pretty bad movie from a pretty good director. the only reason it has a four is because Daniel day lewis' performance is fantastic but the movie lacks any sort of purpose. some better editing could have cut out half this movie and at least then it wouldn't have been such a build up to nothing. "the blood stays on the blade"? lame. and what was the deal with that opening music? absolutely terrible. Expand
  4. Mike
    Feb 14, 2005
    0
    How can the same director make this crap and a masterpiece such as taxi driver?? Unbelievable fight scenes which bored me to death! Dont watch this movie!
  5. sethc
    Jun 13, 2005
    0
    crap, crap, leonardo is horrible. the plot is stupid. the acting is bad. the action scenes put me to sleep.
  6. J.RyanG.
    Jun 17, 2005
    3
    A wretched film that has not decided who or what it is to be, but would not have been very good if it had. In the confusion that was inevitable with this many writers and this big a production, the usually focused Scorsese lost sight nearly completely.
  7. Jul 25, 2014
    0
    And here we go again with this little s h i t of Daniel Day **** Lewis. LEAVE THE CINEMA BUSINESS. YOU'RE USELESS MAN.
    Oh and Martin Scorsese, can you do , for only one time, a little bit good movie? PLEASE
  8. DamianP.
    Jan 6, 2003
    4
    There were several things to like about this movie (the accents were pretty good, and I'd know) but it was still murder on my ass to sit and watch it! The ending was an absolute mess and detracts from what is already a mediocre movie. If you still want to see it, wait for the video.
  9. Mac
    Feb 17, 2003
    3
    People are getting a little harsh down here in these user comments, but - - Gangs of New York simply CANNOT be appreciated. I will not say much, but it is a pretentious mess that nearly levitated me right out of the theater. Note: How long has it been since a film has had both an incredible number of Oscar and Razzie nominations???
  10. Frank
    Feb 24, 2003
    3
    Scorcese is OVERRATED!! The most interesting part of this movie is to envision what NYC might have looked like so long ago. The plot had a Shakespearean tone (son's revenge on his father's killer) but Scorcese failed to follow that thread and examine the psychological implications. He also seems to revel in gratuitous violence. Did you really a 'head butt' on your Scorcese is OVERRATED!! The most interesting part of this movie is to envision what NYC might have looked like so long ago. The plot had a Shakespearean tone (son's revenge on his father's killer) but Scorcese failed to follow that thread and examine the psychological implications. He also seems to revel in gratuitous violence. Did you really a 'head butt' on your enemy ca 1860? How about a meat cleaver in the back of an elected official? And no legal repercussions for the killer? It all falls apart at the end when Leonardo and Daniel-Day are fighting it out amid the '63 draft riots. What's the point? I understand that the movie script was re-written while the movie was in production. This might explain its incoherence. Save your money and see it at a matinee or your local $1 movie. Expand
  11. JoeA.
    Jul 2, 2003
    0
    This Movie Blew! It was too long, too boring, no one but Daniel Day Lewis was good in it. 50% of the movie could have been cut and still retained the crappyness that is Gangs of New York.
  12. ChrisP.
    Jul 30, 2003
    4
    Wow, what a bad movie. When my wife asked me what I thought I was left with only one word to describe it: Stupid Bad script. Bad acting. Bad special effects. Bad. Mad Max meets PT Barnum.
  13. SamJ.
    Jan 12, 2003
    2
    A failure. Little character insight or nuances. Reliant on violence and shock effect. Overwrought, lous and bombastic; Scorsese's worst film.
  14. HatetheAcademy
    Feb 12, 2003
    4
    Hated it - - but I have to admire Day-Lewis' brillant portrait of The Butcher and the set design. I do, however, have serious qualms with the script (where to start???), all the other actors (people that think Leo and Diaz were appropriate for their roles need a lobotomy - or 12), the overly orchestrated violence (blood squirting into people's eyes - please), and the ending was Hated it - - but I have to admire Day-Lewis' brillant portrait of The Butcher and the set design. I do, however, have serious qualms with the script (where to start???), all the other actors (people that think Leo and Diaz were appropriate for their roles need a lobotomy - or 12), the overly orchestrated violence (blood squirting into people's eyes - please), and the ending was just too much to handle. I laughed hysterically. And so did a lot of other people. All in all, the fact that this got more nominations than The Hours is a crime. Make that a felony. Peter Travers, you are one sick and pathetic soul rating this the best film of the year. Poor, poor man. Expand
  15. Timmy!
    Mar 7, 2003
    3
    Plays out like a ballet you want to leave after 10 minutes. It's trying too hard to be something it isn't: important. I agree. Why is this up for Best Picture? Hugely ambitious, yes, but almost a total failure. The other reviewers are right: It's like a Disneyland ride staged as a disaster.
  16. Brian
    Jul 22, 2003
    4
    It could have been more authentic. they didn't give too much of the actual history. they make all americans look like an enemy. It was almost evil.
  17. NormanB.
    Jul 7, 2003
    1
    Abysmal travesty pretending to be history - on every major historical issue,the social setting, the local and national political scene, the Civil War, the stereotyps of Bill the Butcher, the representation of Horace Greeley - the most prgressive journalist in America shown as a plutocrat defending the rivh , the misrepresentation of the the irish immigrnats, the nativist movement leadingAbysmal travesty pretending to be history - on every major historical issue,the social setting, the local and national political scene, the Civil War, the stereotyps of Bill the Butcher, the representation of Horace Greeley - the most prgressive journalist in America shown as a plutocrat defending the rivh , the misrepresentation of the the irish immigrnats, the nativist movement leading to the formation of the Ameircan Party, the draft law, the portrayal of the Union army, even the geography and climate of New York City are all either outright lies, or gross distortions. Nothing better shows the alienation of American "artists" than this sick propaganda film which outdoes Birth of a Nation and the Nazi epic "Jew Suess" for its ugly propaganda. It is a monument to American self-hatred. Expand
  18. GauravG.
    Dec 23, 2002
    0
    Absolutely inane script... great direction and an unbelievable job by daniel day-lewis don't make up for the horrible storyline.
  19. MarkS.
    Dec 23, 2002
    4
    Despite being a spectacle for the eyes the film lacks much in terms of plot and characterization -- especially for how long it is.
  20. HandsomePrancin
    Dec 30, 2002
    0
    A miserable, violent debacle of a film- I was in physical pain for most of the movie. It was so unbelievably bloody and messy- from the skewered accents to the blood bursting from Daniel-Day Lewis's chest onto Leo's face (at which point, most in the audience began laughing), this movie has got to be the most overrated piece of crap that has come out in a few years. Just because A miserable, violent debacle of a film- I was in physical pain for most of the movie. It was so unbelievably bloody and messy- from the skewered accents to the blood bursting from Daniel-Day Lewis's chest onto Leo's face (at which point, most in the audience began laughing), this movie has got to be the most overrated piece of crap that has come out in a few years. Just because Scorcese directed, doesn't mean it's a masterpiece. It's a piece, for sure, but it ain't what he intended- whatever the heck that was. Ugh. Collapse
  21. Tcollins
    Dec 2, 2003
    0
    I thought that this movie would be great but it ended up being one of the worst movies of the year. It started out great but I was rooting for Daniel Day Lewis, a great actor, not Leonardo Decaprio, one of the biggest jokes in the industy.
  22. DanG.
    Feb 13, 2003
    4
    Didn't enjoy this film. Overlong, depressingly formulaic, poorly acted (save of course Mr Day-Lewis and Mr Gleeson) and generally emotionless. The 'Oirish' accents were laughable - esp. Di Caprio's on the ending monologue, which without exception, made every person in the cinema chuckle. Can't remember the U2 song well enough to comment. All in all a bit of a Didn't enjoy this film. Overlong, depressingly formulaic, poorly acted (save of course Mr Day-Lewis and Mr Gleeson) and generally emotionless. The 'Oirish' accents were laughable - esp. Di Caprio's on the ending monologue, which without exception, made every person in the cinema chuckle. Can't remember the U2 song well enough to comment. All in all a bit of a rotter. Nice hats though... Expand
  23. JonA.
    Feb 24, 2003
    4
    I thought Daniel Day Lewis was great, but other than that this film was entirely disappointing. The most laughable part of the movie was the totally unrealistic nature of the sets. They spent an incredible amount of time and energy trying to make this an "authentic" look at old NY, but instead it felt like Disneyland to me. I cannot believe this is up for Best Picture.
  24. Nick
    Feb 28, 2003
    3
    After waching this movie i wondered.. where's the point? decent acting, fancy hats, but geeee what a bs... "jon a." hit the nail: ye ole ny really looks like disneyland. i thought, instead of blood they could have put the grinch to fill in the picture. and the end? deux ex machina?? hehe. and as from the hisorical aspect: wtc still there at the end? heroic or something? don't getAfter waching this movie i wondered.. where's the point? decent acting, fancy hats, but geeee what a bs... "jon a." hit the nail: ye ole ny really looks like disneyland. i thought, instead of blood they could have put the grinch to fill in the picture. and the end? deux ex machina?? hehe. and as from the hisorical aspect: wtc still there at the end? heroic or something? don't get it, really... Expand
  25. DaserR.
    Mar 13, 2003
    0
    This is a bad bad movie. I wish I never saw it.
  26. AdrianB.
    May 20, 2003
    4
    Scenically spectacular, but a confused and tendentious plot. My studies of this period in New York make me feel it does not ring true. Five Points was a fairly small area. The orange characters look like Italians, not New Yorkers.
  27. DevinN.
    Jul 29, 2003
    4
    Booring, long, cliched, not violent enough, a let down for a scorsese fan.
  28. TyS.
    Jul 31, 2003
    2
    Total disappointment all around. Don't waste nearly 3 hours of your life on this movie it is as bad as it gets... Where have all the good epics gone ?
  29. ChrisW.
    Aug 11, 2003
    3
    This epic feels disconnected and overcooked. Day-Lewis's portrayal of the butcher is wildly entertaining but the central relationship of the story between him and DiCaprio is flawed. So much so, it left me questioning the point of this film the entire time I watched it. I do admire Scorsese's ambition and passion for gangs of New York. I just wish I could have shared it.
  30. AnnaS.
    Mar 12, 2003
    0
    What a stupid movie you can never want to see in your life! If you want to see a better movie,save your quarters and watch spriggan the most sexiest film in the world!!!!
  31. RobertB.
    Jul 23, 2003
    3
    This movie was ok! It was very good about the history. But come on if some killed your pop! I would wait that long come on.
  32. AndyS.
    Dec 22, 2002
    4
    Gangs has the size but not the clarity of a great epic. It also has two of our best living actors (Day Lewis and Brendan Gleeson) whose characters might have driven a far more compelling story than the one centered on the in-over-his-head DiCaprio. While Scorcese moves a camera as well as anyone since Fellini, here's hoping he remembers to bring a script next time.
  33. PhillipR.
    Dec 31, 2002
    4
    A bloated, glossy misfire. It is spending 2 and 3/4 hours with a bunch of loathsome, mendacious, self-absorbed, brutes. There is not one character in the entire film that you care a whit for, except, perhaps Liam Neeson's Priest. And, as one of the people I saw this with said, "That's only because we didn't get to know him better." Scorsese's superb craftsmanship A bloated, glossy misfire. It is spending 2 and 3/4 hours with a bunch of loathsome, mendacious, self-absorbed, brutes. There is not one character in the entire film that you care a whit for, except, perhaps Liam Neeson's Priest. And, as one of the people I saw this with said, "That's only because we didn't get to know him better." Scorsese's superb craftsmanship distracts one from the stories vacuous center. It had the potential for greatness, but ultimately misses. This is Scorsese's "Duel in the Sun" (a favorite film of his) rather than his "Gone with the Wind." Wait and rent it. Expand
  34. Jan 3, 2014
    3
    Daniel Day Lewis is awesome in Gangs of NY. He really does deliver a sublime performance and crafts a character out of Bill "The Butcher" Cutting. He's sarcastic and funny, brutal and sincere. Just brilliant dimension and pitch. Leo Dicaprio on the other hand bombs. He's too pretty with his choir boy voice trying to act tough. And act tough he tries the same angry, concentrated lookDaniel Day Lewis is awesome in Gangs of NY. He really does deliver a sublime performance and crafts a character out of Bill "The Butcher" Cutting. He's sarcastic and funny, brutal and sincere. Just brilliant dimension and pitch. Leo Dicaprio on the other hand bombs. He's too pretty with his choir boy voice trying to act tough. And act tough he tries the same angry, concentrated look on his face through the whole movie, spouting overly-dramatized narration at times. He's the character we're supposed to be rooting for? He's the good guy? Killl him, Bill! Kill him! I shouted in my brain the entire second half of the movie. And sorry Cameron Diaz. You did not make the leap to fill a serious dramatic role. How appropriate you end up with Leo. A couple of blonde Californians playing 1850's Irish immigrants. You're both too thin-skinned to be believable in my eyes. Scorsese must be in love with the access to high-profilers these days. It's the only explanation. Expand
Metascore
72

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 39
  2. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. The movie turns choppy in the final third, but it is a monumental achievement nonetheless.
  2. Lacks one thing -- an epic grandeur.
  3. 75
    There is greatness in Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York: titanic acting, violent poetry, moviemaking on a grand scale, a real air of daring. And there is flab in it as well, and confusion.