GANGS OF NEW YORK

Positive—Gangs of New York is a movie that I find to be extremely relevant in this time of unrest in our world and nation. It is a movie that I think should be seen by everyone. The acting, production, and direction are all brilliant, however I believe that it is the themes that are in the movie that are the most relevant.

This is a movie that grapples with what it means to be at war. For those viewers that left before the movie ended, you missed the best part. The final scene of the movie where the buildings rise into modern day New York and the cemetary becomes overgrown and forgotten is one of the most powerful scenes in a movie that I have seen in a long time. It makes you wonder about the purposes of fighting wars today. Do they make any more sense than the “senseless” violence that was portrayed in this movie?

Even the blasphemous use of God in the battle scenes is a powerful reminder of the true nature of why men fight each other (remind anyone of other modern day leaders?). For those that couldn’t look past the violence and nudity, I suggest another viewing (if you can manage it). As you watch this movie, ask yourself the question “How does the movie violence depicted in this era of our country compare with the real violence that is experienced around the world?” I believe that to be appreciated, this movie has to be looked at in a critical way, and not just for its entertainment value.
My Ratings: [Very Offensive / 5]
—Lane, age 22

Positive—“Gangs of New york” is easily one of the best films of the year. Martin Scorsese is a master of storytelling and of cinema. The cinematography is a constant flow of brilliance. It has just the right amount of impulse or restraint for each scene. New York looks fantastic. It is alive and bustling, sometimes dirty and gritty, but always great to look at. In a lengthy series opening the movie, we learn that there is a war for the streets going on in New york. the two strongest groups are the Natives, headed by Bill the Butcher, and The Dead Rabbits, which are lead by a man named Priest Vallon. There is a bloody battle, a very bloody one indeed, Priest is struck down, and the Rabbits, more or less, disband.

Priest is played by Liam Neison, and although he is only in the film for a short time, his presence is felt throughout the entire film. Priest’s son, Amsterdam, was sent to an orphanage after the battle, but years later, he returns to seek his revenge. But this movie isn’t about revenge so much. Revenge feels more like a subplot. It gets things going, but then it takes a back seat, almost.

The film seems more about the different paths that a man could take during that time. Leonardo Dicaprio plays the older Amsterdam, and he does a very good job. I agree with some of the other comments that this is not the same actor we saw in “Titanic.” This is a great actor. (And, in my opinion, this film is better than Leo’s other movie, “Catch Me if You Can.”) He meets the man who killed his father, William Cutting (Bill the Butcher), played brilliantly in an Oscar worthy turn by Daniel Day Lewis. Bill is the films best character, because we see so many sides of him, and we learn so much about him. He is a nasty, vile man, that is for sure.

But, in the film’s best scene, we begin to care about him. We learn that Bill is less of a tyrant and more of a man who does what he thinks he has to do to maintain an order. We see a longing for rest in him, one that will never come with his lifestyle, and he knows it. This reminded me of the characters in “Road to Perdition” earlier this year. Before I saw this film, I heard that the film wasn’t as violent as expected. I disagree. This was a very violent movie. It is violent and bloody, but there is not a lot of gore, which is a good thing.

The violence hit hard, but it wasn’t disgusting. There is some nudity, but it almost seemed like anti-nudity, since the women were so intentionally dirty and unappealing. Cameron Diaz, the most beautiful woman in the movie, does not ever, even in love scene, remove her clothes. I wouldn’t call the nudity sexual at all. I can see the nominations piling up for this picture, and they will all be deserved. It is sheer brilliance. We had to wait quite a long time to see this movie, but it was worth the wait.
My Ratings: [Average / 5]
—Jason Eaken, age 19

Positive—“Gangs Of New York” is an epic film portraying brutal street life in 1860’s New York. “Gangs Of New York” builds to a memorable ending earning its “R” rating along the way. The violence and nudity portrays the times. I have seen more vulgarity in PG-13 films. This grandiose movie is worth its entry fee, and I can recommend “Gangs Of New York” to the point where I would see it again.

…All three [main] actors put in fine performances bringing life to the grand sets and period dress of the Five Points. Suspense builds, and the era comes alive. The film’s weakness in my view is sticking to the good guy-bad guy formula. Though of epic quality, I felt that “Gangs Of New York” could have been even more convincing if it were less predictable. That said, like them or not, the characters become memorable and the tough world of 1860’s urban survival recreates a time and people we have all forgotten. A lot is being said about the violence in this movie. Frankly, many other films are as violent and with no point to it. I did not sense that “Gangs Of New York” was formulated to shock the audience. Life was tough and brutal, and it is thus portrayed.

There is also nudity. Again, not for sexual desensitization as many other movies do, but with expression of the way life was. There is also foul language, but far less than many current mainstream films. If you do not want to be exposed to any “R” rated material, stay away. For mature viewers, “Gangs Of New York” should be perceived more than anything as historical. As a Christian viewer, I found the movie posed some questions for thought.

How would christians respond in such a brutal environment? Can any violence be justified? Interestingly, the main characters all call upon the Lord to their aid in time of need. How apt is this? And the challenge of life we all face today is anything but new. Who would trade their current lot for a stay in the Five Points?…
My Ratings: [Very Offensive / 4]
—Todd Adams, age 35

Positive—…one of the best movies of the year and everyone should see it, but if your convictions tell you otherwise, than you really shouldn’t. I turned my head a few times b/c of some nudity, but other than that, it was pretty tolerable.
My Ratings: [Extremely Offensive / 5]
—PS, age 18

Positive—“Gangs of New York” is, in my opinion, a beautiful film, and superior to the Two Towers. It is definitely one of the best movies I have ever seen. The acting is amazing. This is Daniel Day Louis’s best performance, and one of the best performances ever, in any film, period. I hope he wins the Oscar. Leo Dicaprio has once again proven his talent. Many people think he’s too teeny cutesy after Titanic, but try watching Romeo + Juliet. He can do Shakespeare, and convincingly too, which is proof. And in Gangs, he is perfect. People say he’s miscast, but I found his performance to be riveting.

Also, Cameron Diaz did well in this movie. At first I thought she would be too “pretty” for the tough streets of New York, but surprisingly, she does very well. Martin Scorsese did not miscast a single actor. Scorsese did a grand job directing this film, however. Gangs is nearly flawlessly directed and edited. It kept my attention the whole way through. It’s epic and brutal.

In fact, the directing is so good, it doesn’t feel like a movie; it would seem as if they went back in time with a camera and filmed the streets of New York in the 19th century—except it’s so PERFECTLY filmed. Once again, Martin Scorsese did a fabulous job on this film. The music is pretty good. I bought the soundtrack the other day. I’m not a fan of U2, but the end song, “The Hands That Built America,” is a wonderful piece.

And I’m glad they left in the twin towers at the end. It only added to the message of the film: New York was built in the streets; it was built on violence and gangs wars; and nothing can bring it down. Not even the Sept 11 attacks, I would add. I will warn, however, this movie is extremely violent. Scorsese did a fine job [with] the battles, but I had to look away from the screen more than a few times. Christianity wise, there is nothing morally redeeming about this film. It’s about revenge and greed. When a priest gives Amsterdam a Bible, and tells him that he should learn forgiveness and not seek revenge, he throws it off a bridge, into the water. Hence, the extremely offensive rating. Despite that, I still recommend this movie. To an older audience that is. It’s rated R after all.
My Ratings: [Extremely Offensive / 2]
—Thomas, age 19

Negative—Any positive review of this movie is a pure example of the destructive tolerance that pervades Christian culture today. Any recommendation of this movie is a simple condoning of the dark violence and sexual perversion that is smeered throughout its content. I’m not sure what sort of calculation Mr. Jason Eaken made, but according to my regretable experience with this movie, at least 10% of the movie was set in some sort of brothel and included unabashed sexual indulgence that should make anybody, Christian or not, blush and run!

The idea that portrayal, accurate or not, of a culture’s basest elements is justification of movie content and our entertainment spending is entirely absurd and menacing to Christian testimony. I am sorry to have seen this movie and would strongly recommend against any time spent absorbing its dark filth. Any entertainment value or dramatic elements of this movie are entirely perverted and destroyed by the severe lack of moral regulation. Hollywood once again uses a film to deceive people into thinking that the only role of the church in history was to incite racism and conflict.

The only valid religious characters of the story, the people at the local mission, are with their efforts to affect healing in the community dismissed as irrelevant and totally hopeless. The only solution offered in this movie is a violent and indulgent “live for today, for tomorrow we die” philosophy. Please, take my word for it and avoid supporting this movie with one more of your dollars.
My Ratings: [Extremely Offensive / 2½]
—Ryan Brueckner, age 26

Negative—In all honesty “Gangs of New York” is most likely the best film-making of Martin Scorsese’s career, with an amazing performance by Daniel Day Lewis, and another surprising performance by Leonardo DiCaprio. Its truly unfortunate that so much tallent has to be directed in such a disappointing piece of cinema. Certainly you’ve all heard that this film breaks new ground in the portrayal of mass violence, and sexual contact (nudity). However, the real offense lies in what films like this do the the spirit of humanity… People will argue that this is a historical film and as such has a place in society. But I disagree. I disagree because I question what Mr. Scorsese’s purpose is in telling this story to his audience. Film-makers(directors, actors, writers… etc.) have the potential to affect us in very powerful ways. They literally hold our emotions in their hands.

And at such a time as this in our world when there is so much uncertainty, confusion, sorrow, and fear why don’t more entertainers make an effort to give us an emotional boost in a positive direction. Christ reminded us that in the world we would have incredible troubles but he also commanded us to keep our eyes on Him and the hope that He gives. We as Christians need to encourage one another to do this and stop supporting films like this and encourage our unsaved to do likewise. Everybody needs to be warned to not see this movie for the damage it will do to your sensitivities and your opinion of mankind. I unfortunately went into this movie without doing my usual research or I would have never seen it.
My Ratings: [Extremely Offensive / 4]
—Matthew A. Markakis, age 26

Negative—“Some nudity”? ARE YOU JOKING??? I was horrified by the sexuality of this movie. I’m not sure it should have even gotten a “R” rating. I have NEVER seen a more vulgar film in my life. Maybe it is an example of the times, but that is no reason to watch this “entertainment”. Sin is sin, whether it be one hundred and fifty years ago in New York City or today in Las Vegas. I have never walked out of a movie before this one. I, as well as the five people I went with, all ended up leaving before the end. I strongly encourage you to spend your time—and money—elsewhere.
My Ratings: [Extremely Offensive / 3]
—Jean, age 18

Negative—“Gangs of New York” was a well made, good movie. However, I don’t recommend that a Christian should see it. It was full of graphic violence, sex, nudity, and language. After seeing the movie, I wished I hadn’t.
My Ratings: [Extremely Offensive / 4]
—Joel, age 24

Negative—After ashamedly seeing this movie all I can say to others and myself is… “whatsoever things are true, whatever is right, whatever is pure, what ever is lovely, whatever is praiseworthy… think on these things” Philipians 4:8
My Ratings: [Extremely Offensive / 4]
—J Shea, age 51

Negative—The movie was horrible… predictable, dragged out too long, and offensive. Just kill the freakin guy and get it over with, but no, he must wait, and get involved with naked ladies and disgusting orgies. I left before the end, because I was embarrassed to be seen in such a place…
My Ratings: [Extremely Offensive / 1]
—Dacus, age 18

Negative—This is the most offensive movie I’ve ever seen. I walked out before the end. Blasphemies of God, from both the antagonist and protagonist. A very detailed orgy including frontal nudity of multiple women. Excellent in terms of acting, effects, photography, etc. but that doesn’t justify watching it. Don’t tell yourself you’re seeing this movie for historical purposes; there are plenty of history books you can read about New York. I understand seeing Saving Private Ryan for historical purposes and to show us the horrors of war our parents/grandparents went through. But what historical event necessitates us seeing an orgy, very detailed and showing about 30 women fully nude, and one couple very explicitly practicing their perversion? Why wasn’t it just implied that Daniel Day Lewis’s character was shady? There is nothing redeeming about this movie, it is the most offensive movie I’ve ever seen.
My Ratings: [Extremely Offensive / 4½]
—Anonymous, age 19

Negative—Do not go see this movie… I have never spent so much time staring into my popcorn bag as I did tonight. This movie is disgusting, and I am ashamed that I sat all the way through it. Psalm 101:3
My Ratings: [Extremely Offensive / 2]
—Ryan Guard, age 24

Positive—As you all probably know, this is not a film for the kids. But nonetheless, this film should not be avoided. Despite what others have said, this is not the most morally corrupt film ever made. If anything, it may be one of the most historically accurate films ever made. The language in the movie is not too bad for an R-rated film. The language is not excessive, and is very apt for a movie set in New York in the 1860’s. The violence is nowhere near being considered gore. Although there is a lot of fighting, the camera only shows blood on the ground and a few instances of weapons connecting with their intended targets. Overall, the film is violent, but not gory.

It never shows people being cut in half, and never shows the inside of a person. As for the nudity, it is a little excessive, but there is no nudity shown during sex. The scene is around ten minutes long, and shows several topless women in a brothel. It never goes below their waist, and no sexual behavior is shown in the scene. All in all, the nudity is a little bit too much, but it isn’t anything that ruins the movie. As far as my personal opinion, I loved the movie.

Its historical base and tale of Irish oppression was something which was of great interest to me. Daniel Day Lewis (Bill the Butcher) does a wonderful job as the bad guy, although Leonardo DiCaprio (Amsterdam Vallon) doesn’t do quite so well as his adversary. So speaking from a Christian perspective, this is a good movie to see if you’re 17 or older, and you feel mature and secure in your Christian values. If you feel a little shaky, I recommend not seeing it. But otherwise, I’d definitely advise you to see “Gangs of New York.”
My Ratings: [Very Offensive / 5]
—Kalen McMurrough, age 17

Neutral—I just got back from “Gangs of New York,” and I an extremely disappointed. They must of taken the best three minutes of the film for the preview. I went into the movie thinking it would be your usual violent film rated R because of the realness of the fighting etc. This film is filled with very obscene nudity and excessive gore. I feel bad because I didn’t walk out. I strongly would discourage any christian from seeing this movie. It was a total waste of my time and money.
My Ratings: [Extremely Offensive / 3]
—Jeremy Waller, age 17

Neutral—“Gangs of New York” is a great movie. The language is just a few words. There is not a lot of nudity. …It may be rated R, but it is better than other rated R movies.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 4
—Joshua Sites, age 16 (USA)

…a bloody, dark, depressing, hopeless depiction of “eye-for-an-eye” violence, torture, and cruelty, plus graphic sexual immorality and nudity…
—Movieguide

…Scorsese paints his cinematic canvas with broad strokes, showcasing political graft, racial intolerance, sexual diversity, and the religious fervor of fanatical men…
—Michael Elliott, Movie Parables

…It both astounds and enthrals, providing a riveting exploration of America’s dark heart…
—Nev Pierce, BBC

…If the greatness of a film can be measured by the magnitude of a single performance, the breadth of the ideas and the sheer number of thrilling images, “Gangs of New York” might be the greatest film ever made…
—Joe Williams, St. Louis Post Dispatch