Has anyone seen this again lately? I think it is way better than i remember, a five star masterpiece. At some points the sequences and editing are so amazing you can hardly fathom that they exist. The lame qualities didnt bother me as much anymore... I cant watch Gangs of NY, the aviator, and departed and claim hugo is on their level, for one second.

IT'S ELECTION DAYYY

remove Cameron Diaz and I will THINK about giving it a 4.5/5

Gangs of New York came out nine years ago, not ten, and I still think it's a film whose ambition is to be admired rather than enjoyed. The less said about Leo's accent, the better, and the less Cameron Diaz says, even better.

My opinion hasn't changed on it. It's a 2 star film. The only bright spot for me was Liam Neeson and he was hardly in it.

Actually, it's ten years later next year, it was released in 2002.

I still like it but it's problems now are the same as when it was released - DiCaprio and Diaz were miscast. DDL saves the movie.

I will say DiCaprio of today (or of even 4-5 years ago) could have worked. But I just didn't accept him as a tough guy leader in that time period. Diaz OTOH would never be right.

It's still bottom-tier Scorsese. DiCaprio's accent comes and goes throughout the film. Diaz and to almost the same extent Reilly were pointless. The pacing is choppy. The portrayals of numerous ethnicities at the time is exagerrated and almost cartoonish, in appearance and even by several characters' names. The ending is the very definition of anti-climactic. Two and a half hours waiting to see Amsterdam and Bill clash and all we get is both gangs disappearing into a thick shroud of canon-fire smoke. Great.

I've seen the film twice. Once on VHS I think upon it's first home video release and more recently September of 2010 on blu-ray. I always remembered not liking it, but felt I needed to revisit it and my opinion was unchanged.

There's too many things that don't sit right in the film overall. Particularly, I never liked the score of the film. My second complaint is that for a three hour movie, the most important part (the setup of why Leo is hell bent on revenge), is rushed. So, as the viewer you're expected to be on Leo's side but you're not given much of a reason to do it so it's not a compelling experience.

2 when I saw in the theater. Still a 2 on disc. My experience is the same as with The Aviator. Both left me with no lasting impression.

YES. DiCaprio of that time..wasn't anywhere close to face DDL. Diaz sure as hell couldn't hold her own. Great production design for sure though..

The only people that could strongly hold their own as DDL's equal in that film was Neeson. The others depending on their character did great as well..but damnit...Neeson was burning the screen w/ DDL in there.

Shame on your parents!

Heard of it, but I've actually never seen it.

I give it 3 stars for some good performances, but ultimately another of the many failures for Scorsese as a director.

If only his work could actually measure up to his massive ego more often...

Scorsese has a massive ego? I dunno about that part.

I was just thinking about that but I'd take Leonardo DiCaprio out.

Not a good film.
The only reason worth watching this is for DD Lewis' amazing performance.

Agreed. DDL knows how to chew the scenery. You're mesmerized every time he's onscreen.

The costume department did a great job, for whatever that's worth.

God, I'm in the minority. I like the movie a lot but I guess truly that's because of DDL. If he wasn't in it I probably wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much. Granted I haven't seen it in like 5 years but when it first came to DVD I watched it all the time.

As I recall, I didn't even finish it. It struck me as very forced and...inorganic I guess is the word I am looking for.

Jeeze. I love this movie. Loved it then, love it now. Scorsese movies are always about the feel, not the plot. I thought it was a little out of line with developing too much plot. It was a bit out of character for him. But the way it moves from one thing to the next is a joy (as it always is).

That final shot and U2 song is still so distracting. All the geniously orchestrated things Scorsese does, that was definately a swing and a miss.

I feel it's definitely grown on me in the 9 years since its release. Still not perfect but Day-Lewis' performance is classic and it's an effective piece of filmmaking in its own right.

There's a quote from Werner Herzog where he was asked about his film Where the Green Ants Dream. He acknowledged its flaws and said his films are like children: The ones with problems need more love.

I appreciate Gangs because it feels personal TO ME. It was a film that I anticipated for a very long time (it was originally going to come out at the end of 2001, not 2002). I saw it twice in theaters and both times I was the only one to laugh at Bill's "That's the minority vote!" line. And I was really hopeful that Scorsese would finally get the Oscar.

If I were to watch all of Scorsese's films at once I would probably put Gangs in the bottom 5. But it stands out to me because it was a memorable part of my movie going experience.

Also Bill the butcher is clearly a forerunner to Daniel Plainview who might be the greatest screen character of the last thirty years.

I remember liking it quite a bit when it first came out. I think I've seen it once since then maybe 5 years ago and still enjoyed it.

Not one of my favorites from Marty, but it's still an enjoyable picture. I felt it could have been edited a bit more, as I remember it dragging from time to time.

I loved the set designs and the costumes. And of course Daniel Day Lewis was brilliant.

DDL and the production design are the reasons to see this. The rest, not so much.