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. LassiterP.
    Jan 2, 2003
    10
    Phillip R. I believe that you missed the point. [Spoilers Omitted] This was a chapter in American history that they do not want us to know about? 98% of the audience never knew this type of NY existed but it did! What we watched was the evolution of barbaric rituals of gang warfare into today's civilized society. Daniel Day-Lewis was so frightening that his co-stars all said that he Phillip R. I believe that you missed the point. [Spoilers Omitted] This was a chapter in American history that they do not want us to know about? 98% of the audience never knew this type of NY existed but it did! What we watched was the evolution of barbaric rituals of gang warfare into today's civilized society. Daniel Day-Lewis was so frightening that his co-stars all said that he remained in character off stage until Gangs was wrapped. He should win the Best Actor Oscar hands down. This is an absolute masterpiece despite the blood and violence. Collapse
  2. ConorS.
    Jun 26, 2007
    9
    This is one of Scorsese's finest accomplishments. Though Leo fails to really step it up and deliver, he does fine and hands the spotlight to the far superior (in this film) Daniel Day Lewis, who is fascinating to watch and at the same time chilling. Though he plays the villain, I found myself rooting for him after the first half of the film.
  3. Joseph
    Feb 27, 2007
    10
    Excellent movie. Amazing acting. Original and chaotically beautiful. Gritty and intriguing. You should give this movie a chance unless the only action you enjoy is the standard "action flick."
  4. PatC.
    Jan 7, 2004
    6
    Here we go again, a movie memorializing the worst of the worst. Scorsese is so proficient in not relying on Formula - why did he do so here? Sorry, I'm not buying it. The scene at the end implying New York arose from these troublemakers is touching, but it's the people who avoid struggling that grease the infrastructure. Anyway, nice recreation of the period. Whatever the Here we go again, a movie memorializing the worst of the worst. Scorsese is so proficient in not relying on Formula - why did he do so here? Sorry, I'm not buying it. The scene at the end implying New York arose from these troublemakers is touching, but it's the people who avoid struggling that grease the infrastructure. Anyway, nice recreation of the period. Whatever the attraction is for Cameron Diaz, casting her as a slut was a guaranteed disruption of the story line. As for Daniel Day Lewis, I wish they'd just give him an Oscar and get it over with. Expand
  5. 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
  6. Eon
    Oct 27, 2006
    5
    As much as I like Scorcese, this movie is boring and pointless.
  7. Haasmah
    Jul 2, 2003
    0
    Wow!!!.....this movie blows!...who gives a crap about old newyork gangs.....
  8. KimH.
    Jan 7, 2005
    7
    Revealing no holds barred look at how we really came to be as a nation. Pretty much blows a hole in the sanitized history books.
  9. MichaelM.
    Oct 23, 2004
    10
    There are many words I can say to describe this movie. A small portion of those words would be magnificent, extraordinary, wonderful, excellent, supurb, and great. I thought this film was pretty much great all-around. It has great sets, the writing is crisp, and the acting is very good. I wasn't to taken by Leonardo DiCaprio's potrayal as a young Irish man trying to avenge his There are many words I can say to describe this movie. A small portion of those words would be magnificent, extraordinary, wonderful, excellent, supurb, and great. I thought this film was pretty much great all-around. It has great sets, the writing is crisp, and the acting is very good. I wasn't to taken by Leonardo DiCaprio's potrayal as a young Irish man trying to avenge his father by killing the crime lord and butcher of New York, William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting. Daniel Day-Lewis makes up for DiCaprio's performance and then some. Daniel Day-Lewis's potrayal as Bill the Butcher is excellent, scary and perfect! The other major highlight of the film, besides Day-Lewis's riveting performance, is Martin Scorcese's extraordinary directing. Martin Scorcese has a brilliant vision of the scenery in this film and expresses perfectly on film. I wasn't too crazy about Cameron Diaz's performance. She doesn't deliver a bad performance in the movie at all, but she doesn't deliver a great one either. What can I say? She didn't deserve to be nominated for a Golden Globe Award. This film is for anyone looking to see a fun, wonderfully made, Scorcese flick! Despite popular opinion, Martin Scorsese's best film! Expand
  10. DaveC.
    Jun 22, 2004
    8
    While the plot and structure leave something to be desired, Gangs Of New York nevertheless offers a rich, vibrant depiction of one of the darker periods of American history. The opening battle in particular is both horrifying and beautiful and and absolutely stomps all over the jittery rubbish in Gladiator which aimed for a similar effect but failed to achieve it. The characterisation and While the plot and structure leave something to be desired, Gangs Of New York nevertheless offers a rich, vibrant depiction of one of the darker periods of American history. The opening battle in particular is both horrifying and beautiful and and absolutely stomps all over the jittery rubbish in Gladiator which aimed for a similar effect but failed to achieve it. The characterisation and narrative might be a little off (we never know much more about Amsterdam Vallon other than the fact that he'd dead set on getting revenge for his father's death and I didn't buy that he could keep his identity hidden from Bill for so long despite giving him his forename) but this is nevertheless highly recommended and one of the best films of 2002, it certainly didn't deserve to be ignored at the Oscars while the overrated Chicago practically swept the board. Expand
  11. 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
  12. 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!
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Jun 16, 2012
    7
    The movie isn't perfect, but the production design was amazing, and Daniel Day-Lewis really makes the movie with his performance. All in all, I'd say the movie is definitely worth watching.
  16. Jul 4, 2012
    8
    Loved this movie, although moves a bit slow in the beginning to set up the characters. But past that it takes and keeps your attention thanks to Leo and Daniel Day Lewis. This is a bit of a period piece.
  17. Nov 7, 2012
    9
    Gangs of New York is haunting and acted to perfection. Daniel Day-Lewis, especially, is very good here as Bill the Butcher.
  18. 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
  19. Chetnik
    Jan 9, 2003
    5
    I think the song at the end by U2 sums up this film. It was like Scorsese was trying to appeal to the young hip audience. Cast a pretty boy. A hot girl from a recent hip comedy. Have a really popular POP rock band do a song at the end. Have some hardcore rock music as the score when the battle takes place. Have some weird choppy editing. And you got yourself a Scorsese Music Video. Some I think the song at the end by U2 sums up this film. It was like Scorsese was trying to appeal to the young hip audience. Cast a pretty boy. A hot girl from a recent hip comedy. Have a really popular POP rock band do a song at the end. Have some hardcore rock music as the score when the battle takes place. Have some weird choppy editing. And you got yourself a Scorsese Music Video. Some complain about the violence. Thats not the problem. The problem is a guy who doesn't understand that doing a film that takes place over 100 years ago should not be hip and slick. He was trying too hard to make money from the young audience. Ask yourself if The Godfather would be a better film if Michael was played by Warren Beatty. Or if the score had a really modern song by someone like Elton John. Imagine how pathetic that would be!!!!!!! Expand
  20. StazanS.
    Jan 3, 2003
    9
    The only thing missing is a cameo by De Niro.
  21. 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.
  22. JeremyS.
    Jan 6, 2003
    6
    Gangs is guilty of two cardinal sins. First, it gives us a villain far more charismatic and interesting than the hero. Day-Lewis's performance blows DiCaprio's out of the water and all the good dialogue is given to him as well. The other problem is its excessive length. This is the sort of movie that, unlike, say, The Two Towers, makes you deeply aware of its length because Gangs is guilty of two cardinal sins. First, it gives us a villain far more charismatic and interesting than the hero. Day-Lewis's performance blows DiCaprio's out of the water and all the good dialogue is given to him as well. The other problem is its excessive length. This is the sort of movie that, unlike, say, The Two Towers, makes you deeply aware of its length because there's so much exposition and too many characters. Overall it's barely worth seeing because of Day-Lewis and the superb sets and costumes. Expand
  23. 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???
  24. 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
  25. LuigiA.
    Mar 10, 2003
    10
    Admittedly there are holes in the movie. But, having said that, if for no other reason, Daniel Day-Lewis' performance is definitely OSCAR material. He steals the show.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. jj
    Aug 20, 2003
    10
    Worth watching just for Daniel Day-Lewis' unbelievable performance..
  29. RayM.
    Aug 5, 2003
    5
    The movie had a good story that was drawn on WAY too long and given an ending that doesn't satisfy. Day-Lewis's acting as the butcher was very good. If they could just capture the atmosphere that was in the opening scene with Liam Neeson, this would have been awesome.
  30. Less_success
    Aug 9, 2006
    8
    I can't believe the way people are hating on this movie. It can't possibly deserve a 0 ranking - that's just silly. I think I like this movie more then a lot of people, but let's get real for a moment, guys. Daniel Day-Lewis and DiCaprio both do a great job in this movie (particularly Day-Lewis). The plot isn't amazing, but it's still enthralling enough to I can't believe the way people are hating on this movie. It can't possibly deserve a 0 ranking - that's just silly. I think I like this movie more then a lot of people, but let's get real for a moment, guys. Daniel Day-Lewis and DiCaprio both do a great job in this movie (particularly Day-Lewis). The plot isn't amazing, but it's still enthralling enough to keep someone interested, even though it is a little too long. It's not Scorsese's best directed film, but it's still got better direction then 75% of the films made. If you rate this movie a 0, then your rating system is greatly flawed. Expand
  31. EricF.
    Dec 30, 2002
    9
    I believe this was a classic Scorsese movie filled with overwhelming drama, blood, history....and some truth. The large budget and hard work is definitely worth the wait!
  32. 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.
  33. ForresterT.
    Jan 4, 2003
    10
    Wow! A must see. Daniel Day-Lewis is superb.
  34. RyanB.
    Jan 7, 2003
    6
    The whole premise of this movie I think is sabotaged by the own historical riots and mobs in the streets of New York. While I was somewhat enjoying the movie until the part after Dicaprio recovers from his incident, this film lost everything it begins to build up for this riot and spends way to much time doing so, neglecting most of the characters and constanly switching around to The whole premise of this movie I think is sabotaged by the own historical riots and mobs in the streets of New York. While I was somewhat enjoying the movie until the part after Dicaprio recovers from his incident, this film lost everything it begins to build up for this riot and spends way to much time doing so, neglecting most of the characters and constanly switching around to different actors. I lost pretty much all interest in the characters. It becomes some observation of bloody mobs getting killed by the army. Can I ask why even get us interested in the whole vengeance plot if it is going to shift to some kind of history lesson. I guess this movie is worth seeing once, but I ultimately felt let down by it. The acting was not half bad though. All in all I guess you can say one thing about it, it shows how violence solves nothing. Expand
  35. 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
  36. Warren
    Mar 23, 2003
    7
    Spent this weekend watching Gangs and The Pianist to complete the films that are up for the Oscars. Gangs is good but has many holes in its storyline. Daniel Day-Lewis is absolutely brilliant and should be odds on to win Best Actor. Martin Scorsese is the popular choice to win Best Director and he has done an excellent job bringing 1863 New York to life. However, Roman Polanski in Spent this weekend watching Gangs and The Pianist to complete the films that are up for the Oscars. Gangs is good but has many holes in its storyline. Daniel Day-Lewis is absolutely brilliant and should be odds on to win Best Actor. Martin Scorsese is the popular choice to win Best Director and he has done an excellent job bringing 1863 New York to life. However, Roman Polanski in directing The Pianist may have made the best work he will ever direct. The Pianist by far is heads and tails better than any movie that has been made in the last decade. There is no comparison with the Gangs Of New York or any other film. Whether it wins or not everyone should see it. Expand
  37. 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.
  38. JennodS.
    Apr 14, 2003
    9
    I love it. Go see it one and all. Yeas it does have holes in it, but there are so many good bits that make up for it....not to mention Daniel Day-Lewis who is superb! Also Scorsese never puts a foot wrong....class!!
  39. TommyL.
    Jul 18, 2003
    6
    It was good, not great, for the most part. Then the end just ruined it. It's worth a look I guess...but be prepared to be disappointed.
  40. 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.
  41. JackD.
    Jul 7, 2003
    9
    Overlong but wildly alive and vivid! The amount of detail and life in there is amazing, and well worth watching even at 3 hrs long.
  42. 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
  43. FredM.
    Aug 20, 2003
    10
    Awesome. Daniel Day-Lewis' finest performance.
  44. TonyJ.
    Dec 22, 2002
    10
    Despite its flaws, the best film of the year. "Gladiator" looks like a silly childrens' morality tale in comparison. The complexity and honesty of the fluidly realized ideas in this film are without a match in today's simplified world of film.
  45. SamB.
    Dec 20, 2002
    10
    This film is timeless and epic. The reviewers no not what they are talking about. This film rightly should sweep the Oscars.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. RobertH.
    Dec 24, 2002
    10
    An absolute masterpiece that will keep you riveted to the edge of your seat in nervous anticipation. Daniel Day-Lewis should earn an Oscar nomination for his role of Billy The Butcher. The rest of the cast is also outstanding. Destined to become a classic.
  49. AmberP.
    Dec 31, 2002
    10
    This is an absolutely powerful portrayal of NYC in the 19th century. We certainly did not learn about this in our history books and for good reason. Once you see the movie, if you are like me, you will run to your history books to learn more. Daniel Day-Lewis wins the Oscar for Best Actor hands down. He captivates the screen as Billy The Butcher. Go see it today!
  50. 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. Expand
  51. AaronL.
    Dec 30, 2002
    7
    Although this is a very good film (and sure to be a big Oscar fave), the film is far from perfect. I enjoy big, epic, 3 hour films, but this one is about 1/2 hour too long. There were many places cuts could have been made - especially the love story portion with a horribly miscast Cameron Diaz. Also, the film seemed too big for such a thin revenge plot. And to cover up for this, the film Although this is a very good film (and sure to be a big Oscar fave), the film is far from perfect. I enjoy big, epic, 3 hour films, but this one is about 1/2 hour too long. There were many places cuts could have been made - especially the love story portion with a horribly miscast Cameron Diaz. Also, the film seemed too big for such a thin revenge plot. And to cover up for this, the film is loaded with incredible, detailed visuals to keep you occupied. However, my eyes were glued to the screen whenever Daniel Day-Lewis was there. Could easily be the best actor of the year. A good film begging to be a great film with some time spent in the editing room. Expand
  52. JamesE.
    Jan 1, 2003
    9
    Scorsese's epic tale of a bloody period of New York's history nearly forgotten by the history books is not quite a materpiece, but it is a very impressive work nonetheless. With spectacular cinematics, dynamite acting (particularly from Daniel Day Lewis), and a deep passion from its director, the film manages to overcome a weaker script and dazzle with its scope and splendor.
  53. MikeM.
    Jan 13, 2003
    5
    Daniel Day-Lewis does play his role wonderfully but that alone can not save this movie. Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio do a fine job as well. The storytelling leaves more to be desired, especially towards the end and there is little character development beyond the main characters. I agree with Ryan B. that the story lost focus after Amsterdam's betrayal. Gangs of New York left Daniel Day-Lewis does play his role wonderfully but that alone can not save this movie. Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio do a fine job as well. The storytelling leaves more to be desired, especially towards the end and there is little character development beyond the main characters. I agree with Ryan B. that the story lost focus after Amsterdam's betrayal. Gangs of New York left me with a certain uneasy taste in my mouth with the very slanted view it portrayed on the Civil War. After the buildup of a great revenge story this film fell apart but not by fault of the actors, I can question the writers, director and post production team. Expand
  54. 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.
  55. Meat
    Feb 13, 2003
    7
    As Em would say "why you so mad". Just because someone has a diff opinion about something, doesn't make them "sick, pathetic, or poor". Raise your maturity level and get over yerself. Now, this movie was definitely an Epic and Daniel Day Lewis was absolutely amazing. However, there was WAY too much going on. Just concentrate on the Irish/immigrant gangs (Title) and cut out the Draft As Em would say "why you so mad". Just because someone has a diff opinion about something, doesn't make them "sick, pathetic, or poor". Raise your maturity level and get over yerself. Now, this movie was definitely an Epic and Daniel Day Lewis was absolutely amazing. However, there was WAY too much going on. Just concentrate on the Irish/immigrant gangs (Title) and cut out the Draft riots, Civil War, and slavery issue and the movie would have been a 10. Expand
  56. 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
  57. MikeK.
    Feb 13, 2003
    9
    It is great. I just wish it was more historically accurate. But It was a great movie, and I loved it. I am the consumer, not those cheeseball critics who think their $hit smells like roses. They may have not liked it, but I loved it.
  58. 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.
  59. MattL.
    Feb 24, 2003
    8
    The guy who went on about Scorsese trieing to appeal to a hip young audience totally misses the point. All the moves the young, hip brigade of directors have adopted- flashy editing; high, extreme violence, scenes set to poular music, long Steadicam sequences- have been inadvertedly been borrowed off Scorsese, who borrowed it off the French New Wave. WITHOUT SCORSESE, THERE WOULD BE NO The guy who went on about Scorsese trieing to appeal to a hip young audience totally misses the point. All the moves the young, hip brigade of directors have adopted- flashy editing; high, extreme violence, scenes set to poular music, long Steadicam sequences- have been inadvertedly been borrowed off Scorsese, who borrowed it off the French New Wave. WITHOUT SCORSESE, THERE WOULD BE NO TARANTINO. It's THAT simple. As it is, Gangs... is ridiculously flawed, and was obviously shoe-horned by the studios, but this does not detract from the fact that Scorses is the greatest living American director, and there are plenty of bravura sequences to indulge in. If you want a better Scorsese film , rent "Goodfellas" or "Mean Streets". In the meantime, watch this. It certainly has more life in its opening sequence than the entirety of Titanic. Expand
  60. 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
  61. BobH.
    Mar 12, 2003
    6
    Disappointing. That was the word that kept popping into my head when I was watching this movie. The acting was excellent (congratulations to Daniel Day-Lewis especially) and there was some nice cinematography but some costumes and scenes were waaaaaay over the top. The lines were very corny and there was nothing really compelling about it.
  62. DaserR.
    Mar 13, 2003
    0
    This is a bad bad movie. I wish I never saw it.
  63. MathewN.
    Mar 24, 2003
    10
    Absolutely breathtaking. The fact that Daniel Day Lewis was robbed of the Best Actor Award made me sick.
  64. LarryG.
    Mar 26, 2003
    7
    Having seen The Pianist and Gangs I would agree that Pianist was the better movie and that Adrian Brody's performance was excellent. Not to detract from Mr. Brody, but Daniel Day-Lewis' performance in Gangs dwarfed all other contenders for Best Actor in this or any other year. In a nutshell he was robbed. I would recommend Gangs if for nothing else than to see his portrayal of Having seen The Pianist and Gangs I would agree that Pianist was the better movie and that Adrian Brody's performance was excellent. Not to detract from Mr. Brody, but Daniel Day-Lewis' performance in Gangs dwarfed all other contenders for Best Actor in this or any other year. In a nutshell he was robbed. I would recommend Gangs if for nothing else than to see his portrayal of Billy The Butcher. His character is bound to become a classic. Expand
  65. AdriaticoM.
    Mar 28, 2003
    10
    Simply a masterpiece! kudos to scorsese and day-lewis!
  66. DelvinD.
    Apr 24, 2003
    10
    I give the movie a 10 for Daniel Day Lewis's performance. He was superb and stood out as heads and tails above all of the actors. He was much deserving of the Best Actor award.
  67. 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.
  68. DevinN.
    Jul 29, 2003
    4
    Booring, long, cliched, not violent enough, a let down for a scorsese fan.
  69. 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 ?
  70. ChuckD.
    Jul 4, 2003
    10
    Beautiful and Daniel Day Lewis' potrayel of Bill the Butcher could be one of the best performances ever
  71. 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.
  72. JaredSS
    Jan 2, 2004
    9
    Another excellent film for Scorsese! This makes it 1- Mean Streets, 2- Taxi Driver, 3- Raging Bull, 4- King of Comedy, 5- After Hours, 6- Last Temptation of Christ, 7- Goodfellas, 8- Casino, 9- Bringing Out the Dead, and now 10 stitches to secure the placement of the Filmmaking Hall of Fame patch right on Scorsese's arm!
  73. [Anonymous]
    Jul 9, 2005
    8
    Shows the chaos of New york around that time, but the movie almost gets itself lost in it. Luckily, it manages to regian its focus in time.
  74. DaveF
    Sep 3, 2005
    10
    Picture that friend of yours who falls asleep during action movies. He's always complaining about the clichés, the watered-down plot, the hackneyed action sequences. Gangs of New York is what that friend might dream up given a Hollywood cast and limitless freedom. I was expecting a gaudy, eye-rolling showcase for Diaz and DiCaprio's pretty faces. Instead I witnessed a Picture that friend of yours who falls asleep during action movies. He's always complaining about the clichés, the watered-down plot, the hackneyed action sequences. Gangs of New York is what that friend might dream up given a Hollywood cast and limitless freedom. I was expecting a gaudy, eye-rolling showcase for Diaz and DiCaprio's pretty faces. Instead I witnessed a down-and-dirty masterpiece with inspired acting, dazzling writing, and bold camerawork. The script doggedly avoids empty-headed clichés, instead inventing classic lines for future copycats. One memorable scene takes place on a body-strewn battlefield in the Five Points. Bill the Butcher, folding a blood-stained knife into the hands of a fallen priest, says with dutiful respect: "you'll need this to cross the river." Even the voice-over work in Gangs is fresh, binding the meaty chaos with barbed-wire eloquence. It's a pity some critics label the movie "indulgent", simply because it dares to sustain virtuoso vision for nearly three hours. We should be so lucky to have this-a Hollywood movie that bleeds when pricked. It is rare to have characters we not only care about, but whose conflicts and relationships are unapologetically human. Here is a conniving monster with a heart, and a hero who becomes his son. And why was it news to some that the film is not 100 percent historically accurate? This is a story. A story that ignites as grisly, glorious nightmare the way only film can. Expand
  75. BlakeJ.
    Mar 11, 2007
    8
    A painfully gruesome and honest portrayal of racism. Daniel Day-Lewis falls into his role so well half the time you will wonder if he is coming for you.
  76. NoahK.
    Dec 19, 2002
    8
    A Film of Epic proportions, Daniel D. Lewis is incredible!
  77. RodgerC.
    Dec 21, 2002
    10
    Simply put, this movie is one of the best movies made in years. The acting is incredible, with performances and characters that rival any of the modern classics. A 69 rating from Metacritic, 5 points high than "Stuart Little 2", is obviously ludicrous and an excellent illustration of Metacritc's flaws.
  78. RajS.
    Dec 23, 2002
    7
    Everyone speaks of this films epic feel. I failed to see that. The film came off as wanting to be epic. The film had some slow spots, but over all, the film pulls off what it's wanting to do.
  79. JeffreyL.Shannon"GoldenAgeManiac!"
    Dec 23, 2002
    10
    To quote Leonard Maltin - He's waited 11 months for something this powerful/superb to move him & this is it! I agree. Being a "MICK!" i'm a wee-bit prejudiced, i reckon' but this is not exactly a flattering portrait of my heritage anyway? & from pt. I saw trailer last yr. knew OSCARS would love-it & will! Not only finally: Scorsese, but a 2nd OSCAR positively going to: *D. To quote Leonard Maltin - He's waited 11 months for something this powerful/superb to move him & this is it! I agree. Being a "MICK!" i'm a wee-bit prejudiced, i reckon' but this is not exactly a flattering portrait of my heritage anyway? & from pt. I saw trailer last yr. knew OSCARS would love-it & will! Not only finally: Scorsese, but a 2nd OSCAR positively going to: *D. DAY-LEWIS in one of cinemas great villian roles! Don't miss last superb-shot? I predict this & "Chicago," to rec. most nods. 10 or more!? But, in the end this film is the title people will hear most, upon opening of the envelopes!!! & U2 prob. snag 1 as well for song. Expand
  80. JoshuaW.
    Dec 24, 2002
    5
    For the first 15 minutes I could not for the life of me stop smiling, I thought the movie was brilliant. And then, it got bad. Scorcese couldn't figure out if he wanted it to be an epic, love story, historical piece, or a stylized version of any of the above. There were a lot of mistakes in the movie with regard to actions being cut together out of order and several shots randomly For the first 15 minutes I could not for the life of me stop smiling, I thought the movie was brilliant. And then, it got bad. Scorcese couldn't figure out if he wanted it to be an epic, love story, historical piece, or a stylized version of any of the above. There were a lot of mistakes in the movie with regard to actions being cut together out of order and several shots randomly throughout the movie with bad exposures cut inbetween shots with good ones. I think the acting was excellant all around but it was Daniel Day-Lewis, who I am glad is being nominated for awards as the leading actor, because he was brilliant. I hope he wins another academy award for this one because he deserves it. I've never seen Day-Lewis give a bad performance but this one is still well above even his usual high standards of acting. Expand
  81. MarcK.
    Dec 25, 2002
    8
    I'll agree with the reviewer listed on this site from the Austin Chronicle who gave this an "8", and said it's Scorecese's best work in a decade. I don't think 2002 has been a very good year for movies, and while "Gangs" is not a great film, it's very good, and may be the best film of the year (I still have to see a few more highly touted movies!). I'm a I'll agree with the reviewer listed on this site from the Austin Chronicle who gave this an "8", and said it's Scorecese's best work in a decade. I don't think 2002 has been a very good year for movies, and while "Gangs" is not a great film, it's very good, and may be the best film of the year (I still have to see a few more highly touted movies!). I'm a sucker for historical pieces that include great detail (like his earlier film, "The Age of Innocence"), and this film has all that. Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is probably the best male performance I've seen since Malcolm McDowell in "A Clockwork Orange." I'm not sure he'll get the Best Actor Oscar, but he certainly deserves it. Expand
  82. Richard
    Dec 26, 2002
    8
    Sags a bit in the middle, and not everything in it is equally compelling. Day-Lewis is probably still picking scenery out of his teeth, but it's a performance scaled to Scorsese's ambition and there's a lot going on underneath the flashy exterior. DiCaprio is solid if unsurprising, especially when up against one of the strongest supporting casts ever assembled, particularly Sags a bit in the middle, and not everything in it is equally compelling. Day-Lewis is probably still picking scenery out of his teeth, but it's a performance scaled to Scorsese's ambition and there's a lot going on underneath the flashy exterior. DiCaprio is solid if unsurprising, especially when up against one of the strongest supporting casts ever assembled, particularly Henry Thomas and Brendan Gleeson. By turns sweeping and boring, its ambition will get to you, and the ultimate impact of the film is hard-hitting enough to make you scramble for the nearest New York City history book. So bravos all around. Expand
  83. CarolynD.
    Dec 29, 2002
    9
    Cut the love story, add all the other scenes that ended up on the cutting room floor. Cut the U2 song at the end. Otherwise, very fine. Day-Lewis is just great and hilarious.
  84. C.S.
    Jan 11, 2003
    10
    Incredible film. One of the best I've seen. Sarcasm, sybolized by Daniel's hilarious hat, is witty yet bitter. Anti-American. Historical and Honest to the facts.
  85. Z.Goeringer
    Jan 15, 2003
    10
    Great films often are initially misunderstood, and this masterpiece ranks among the greatest misunderstood films of all time.
  86. NolanB.
    Jan 17, 2003
    9
    Bold, brutal, and breath-taking. Day-Lewis sets a new standard for great acting and characterization.
  87. ChrisE.
    Feb 15, 2003
    10
    I think it need be said that anyone who complains about the ending of the movie, specifically the "draft battle", just doesn't understand why this scene was included. The end of this movie just reinforces the rest perfectly. This is New York, did you really think that this insignificant battle meant anything to the rest of New York? Of course not, that is why the end is there. New I think it need be said that anyone who complains about the ending of the movie, specifically the "draft battle", just doesn't understand why this scene was included. The end of this movie just reinforces the rest perfectly. This is New York, did you really think that this insignificant battle meant anything to the rest of New York? Of course not, that is why the end is there. New York, at that time, was facing much larger problems than either Amsterdam or Bill Poole. The ending of this movie was a reality check; perfectly placed in the script by Scorsese. It's a shame that most don't understand the purpose of these scenes. Expand
  88. CJ
    Feb 24, 2003
    10
    Read Chris E. Right on the mark.
  89. 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!!!!
  90. Matt
    Jul 12, 2003
    6
    I was disappointed in this movie. The first battle sequence was not what i thought it would of been. wasn't as realistic as i though it was and the ending was too quick. it almost seems that the outcome of the story was due to a outside force. i didn't like that part they should of had a huge knife fight instead of the army comming in and kicking everyones ass's then theI was disappointed in this movie. The first battle sequence was not what i thought it would of been. wasn't as realistic as i though it was and the ending was too quick. it almost seems that the outcome of the story was due to a outside force. i didn't like that part they should of had a huge knife fight instead of the army comming in and kicking everyones ass's then the good guy killing the 3/4 dead bad guy. Expand
  91. 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.
  92. JuliaK.
    Aug 22, 2003
    10
    Great movie, lots of history, pretty cool, every person should like it. Lets you see what the world was like.
  93. B.Carey
    Sep 27, 2003
    6
    Interesting visually, but Scorsese loses the story line.
  94. YoonMinC.
    Sep 28, 2003
    9
    Scorsese has made two kinds of movies; those where he knew the material like the back of his hand and those where he was a fascinated, even overly reverent, outsider. The former kind has been more successful, his movies about the Italian-American organized crime, the neurosis of contemporary NY, or artistic oddballs of any stripe. The films of the latter category include great films such Scorsese has made two kinds of movies; those where he knew the material like the back of his hand and those where he was a fascinated, even overly reverent, outsider. The former kind has been more successful, his movies about the Italian-American organized crime, the neurosis of contemporary NY, or artistic oddballs of any stripe. The films of the latter category include great films such as Age of Innocence and Kundun. It also includes a clunker like Last Temptation. Gangs of NY falls somewhere in between Scorsese's wildest successes and foulest stupidities. Still, it offers a personal and gutsy historical/cultural vision in our age of meek political correctness and deranged popcultural amnesia. The world of Gangs is fascinating, where the divisions among politics, crime, business, cultural identities, etc are fuzzy, when the idea of Americanism was still not clearly established. It's a vision of hell but also a glimpse into a mad social experiment(by whom, who can tell?), a world of 19th century Clockwork Orange reflected thru the labyrinthine prisms of Alice in Wonderland. Nothing quite seems, but everything feels, real. Oddly, the quiet, reflective moments are best by far in a movie promoted mainly for its macho violence. The dance scene is one of the most beautiful, and the many soliloquies of Bill the Butcher played by the magnificent Daniel Day Lewis are sublime smoldering embers of venomous hate and warped wisdom. Dicaprio's brooding performance slithers beneath Lewis's more showy performance like a snake and the inevitable confrontation between the two comes to a grand climax. Expand
  95. SethF.
    Jun 11, 2008
    7
    I felt it was a solid film, up until the end. I felt there were two films going on, and by the time there was the epic battle between Day Lewis and DiCaprio, I felt let down. But Scorsese proves he doesn't have to have the present day to make an effective film. I loved watching it!
  96. 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.
  97. FantasyL.
    Dec 23, 2002
    10
    Absolutely brilliant movie of epic proportions that rivets your eyes to the screen and keeps you on the edge of your seat. Daniel Day-Lewis will most certainly receive an Oscar nomination and should be odds on for the Best Actor award. Gangs of NY demonstrates a piece of history that not too many of us are even aware existed. It is a must see movie for all despite the bloody gore and Absolutely brilliant movie of epic proportions that rivets your eyes to the screen and keeps you on the edge of your seat. Daniel Day-Lewis will most certainly receive an Oscar nomination and should be odds on for the Best Actor award. Gangs of NY demonstrates a piece of history that not too many of us are even aware existed. It is a must see movie for all despite the bloody gore and violence. Wow! Expand
  98. ChadS.
    Dec 23, 2002
    7
    Mean Streets. Taxi Driver. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. After Hours. Good Fellas. These are my favorite Martin Scorsese films. It's not fair to hold the man to these impossible standards, but Gangs of New York is a disappointment. It's reminiscent of Batman, in the sense that the villain is much more compelling than the hero. The cinema needs Daniel Day-Lewis. We need Mean Streets. Taxi Driver. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. After Hours. Good Fellas. These are my favorite Martin Scorsese films. It's not fair to hold the man to these impossible standards, but Gangs of New York is a disappointment. It's reminiscent of Batman, in the sense that the villain is much more compelling than the hero. The cinema needs Daniel Day-Lewis. We need Mr. Scorsese too. If not Travis Bickle-good, at least Pesci-in-a-cornfield-good would suffice. It's shocking how more attention went into the production design and art direction than the story. Maybe the master works better with less money. Expand
  99. John
    Dec 27, 2002
    10
    How starved we are for epics -- this one is a masterwork from Scorsese, and one of the year's best.
  100. RyanM.
    Dec 28, 2002
    10
    The hugest, most fascinating, brilliant, dazzling, brawniest, Oscar material of the year, or few years.
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.