"Gangs of New York": Profound Historical Epic or one the worse pieces of crap I have ever sat through--three hours!--nobody told me it was going to be three hours long! (Spoilers)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I can't be much more articulate about it than that though.

Abominable script and acting. Clumsy bids for depth. ALWAYS LEAVE THE BLOOD ON, man.

I thought it would all soon be over, but the two sworn enemies live to battle each other another day, at least an hour later.

The only good thing it did was get me very curious about a period of American history I know next to nothing about.

And finally, at the end, as the credits roll up, a really lame U2 song (written for the movie?) is played.

― Rockist Scientist, Saturday, 21 December 2002 07:20 (twenty-three years ago)

It also reminded me how miserable and fucked up the world has historically been, and now is, though I live in a little island of relative peace and calm, for the moment. However, it didn't partiuclarly explore these themes. It played with some very weighty matters, but did not remotely do them justice.

― Rocksit Scientist, Saturday, 21 December 2002 07:28 (twenty-three years ago)

My taste in movies tends to be pretty high-brow though (to the extent I ever see them), and quite spontaneously so. I'm sure I am not trying not to like mainstream movies or trying to like art films (not that I just love all art films).

― Rockist Scientist, Saturday, 21 December 2002 07:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Scorsese films = about as "high-brow" as the mainstream gets, no? I haven't seen this and probably won't, since his recent films have bored me, but I accidentally heard a minute or two of Michael Medved on the radio today and he was saying that the only good thing about it was that "Robert De Niro isn't in it." Since Medved is never right about anything (even when what he says is demonstrably true), this makes me think that Gangs of New York can't be all that bad.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 21 December 2002 07:59 (twenty-three years ago)

True about Scorsese being on the high-brow end of the mainstream. I kind of got roped into seeing this and was only semi-conscious of it being a Scorsese (are we spelling that right?) film. I liked Taxi Driver and Raging Bull when I saw them.

I still think it sucked and really dragged on and on.

― Rockist Scientist, Saturday, 21 December 2002 08:09 (twenty-three years ago)

I love Scorsese but how exactly is he highbrow?

Anyhow, the book is fantastic and lends itself to adaptation about as well as Herodotus. I'll go see this out of some sense of loyalty to Scorsese (he's clearly shot his wad here) and because I like Daniel Day-Lewis, but my hopes aren't very high.

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 21 December 2002 09:23 (twenty-three years ago)

it could never be as bad as LOTR

― Queen G (Queeng), Saturday, 21 December 2002 09:28 (twenty-three years ago)

I took "highbrow" to mean something respectable and "arty," though it's rather a vague term. I just meant that Scorsese didn't seem like a particularly mainstream director, so disliking Gangs of N.Y. wouldn't necessarily make you a snob.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 21 December 2002 10:56 (twenty-three years ago)

James, if you like Daniel Day-Lewis, you might like this movie. I am not really familiar with him (which probably is a give away about how many movies I see), but I found him and his character tiresome.

Speaking of art films, oddly enough for such an action packed film, this one dragged almost as much as Last Year in Marienbad.

― Rockist Scientist, Saturday, 21 December 2002 13:55 (twenty-three years ago)

Films are always improved by Robert DeNiro. For example, if he was in Pretty in Pink, as say Molly Ringwald's father, it'd have been brilliant. As it is, it's only decent. Also, if it was directed by Scorcese, that would've been pretty good too.

― Ally (mlescaut), Sunday, 22 December 2002 02:12 (twenty-three years ago)

Films are never improved by removing Harry Dean Stanton!

― James Blount (James Blount), Sunday, 22 December 2002 06:03 (twenty-three years ago)

What if De Niro had played the Molly Ringwald role? That would have been even MORE brilliant!

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 22 December 2002 09:07 (twenty-three years ago)

I really liked it. It was ambitious. It should have been 5 hours long to cover all the ground he tried to cover. Very stylized, as always with Scorcese, gorgeous tracking shots, good Robbie Robertson-supervised score, and DDL was fantastic. Sure the story had problems, but I like stories where people have to take a side and commit to it. I recommend that people see it and make up their minds for themselves, but whatever. I saw it in Jersey and drove back into NY over the GW bridge.

― felicity (felicity), Sunday, 22 December 2002 17:12 (twenty-three years ago)

oh, and Luc Sante was the historical consultant, which I agree with Rockist the film did pretty well.

― felicity (felicity), Sunday, 22 December 2002 17:13 (twenty-three years ago)

I hate Leonardo DiCaprio with a passion. I hate Cameron Diaz almost as much. Will I be able to reconcile this and enjoy the film? Or should I just go see The 25th Hour?

― Ally (mlescaut), Sunday, 22 December 2002 18:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Ally, it's pretty hard to just ignore DiCaprio in this film.

(If the movie had been five hours long, I think I would have wanted to leave the theater to hunt DiCaprio and murder him myself.)

I wasn't too impressed with Diaz either.

I think this is the first time I have seen either in a movie, since I am a non-movie-seeing mentalist. I just know of them vaguely as famous movie stars. I will definitely avoid DiCaprio in the future.

― Rockist Scientist, Sunday, 22 December 2002 18:50 (twenty-three years ago)

Whenever I see DiCaprio, I think of an angry little piglet, and it's very distracting, plus I don't think he's a very good actor. So I just can't abide by him. SIGH. I'll still end up seeing it, but I know I'm going to like The 25th Hour better which means SPIKE LEE HAS TRIUMPHED. "Now I am the master" etc. I seen Spike Lee in the store the other day, he was yelling at someone through his cell phone.

Why did you go to Jersey to see it, Felicity?

― Ally (mlescaut), Sunday, 22 December 2002 18:58 (twenty-three years ago)

did u see Bamboolzed Ally? my friend just saw half of it and was having issues w/ it but still liked it

― Vic (Vic), Sunday, 22 December 2002 19:10 (twenty-three years ago)

This movie sucked. Dull and false. I went out of a sense of director loyalty, but really this movie is not worth seeing.

― Aaron A., Sunday, 22 December 2002 19:32 (twenty-three years ago)

stay away from the hobbits

― Queen G (Queeng), Sunday, 22 December 2002 20:06 (twenty-three years ago)

I did see Bamboozled, I thought it was excellent.

― Ally (mlescaut), Sunday, 22 December 2002 20:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Gangs sometimes reminded me of watching a bunch of Medieval war recreators, or fantasy role-playing types: "According to the ancient ways of our ancestors. . ."

― Rockist Scientist, Sunday, 22 December 2002 21:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Why did you go to Jersey to see it, Felicity?

haha, Ally, I'll tell you about that but let's just say it involved my car and batting cages. So when in January are we doing the road trip to Woodbury Common where I spike the other shoppers with my boots so you can pry your wonderful new long work pants out of their clawing grasp?

― felicity (felicity), Monday, 23 December 2002 05:48 (twenty-three years ago)

three weeks pass...

Gangs Of New York is the most rockist film ever. (I shall expand on this later). Put it like this I saw two movies with John C.Reilly in yesterday - and The Good Girl was the better one.

The first ten minutes of GONY are hilarious. The next couple of hours waver between tedious and silly. A gloriously overdone anti-American subtext (I kept expecting Michael Moore to rock up and go "this is America, where people get interrupted from beating each other to death by their own Government killing them").

Most rockist moment in the film, when yet another Irish ditty invades the soundtrack, and someone walks across the screen actually singing it. Cos real music needs real singers....

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:08 (twenty-three years ago)

I nearly went and saw it but the Belgian lass warned me off it in the nick of time and advised me to go see "City of God" instead (which I still haven't done 'cos I wasted most of Saturday looking for the Cody ChesnuTT CD grrr!).

Dunno. Maybe it's just me but I can't stand self-consciously "epic" films. The best film I saw this weekend was "Last Night" on C4; quite moving low-budget Canadian thing about how different people in Toronto spend the last evening of their lives before WW3/Armageddon. Cronenberg acted in it as a psychiatrist.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Last Night is a fantastic movie, especially since it came out near the big budget Amrageddon and Deep Impact - neither of which considered this obvious philosophical aspect of certain death.

Certainly I would say see City Of God before Gangs Of New York. GONY is funny (often on purpose as in nearly all Daniel Day-Lewis's scenes - often accidental as in all of Leonardo Di Caprio's), but wants to have its cake and eat it. In particular its racial politics are dangerously confused.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:18 (twenty-three years ago)

i read that scorsese makes a thing of having eschewed CGI, so i have v.low hopes

DDL's topper is the best ever worn by anyone ever however.

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:21 (twenty-three years ago)

oh oh my friend adair is always telling me to see "last night", but it has such a meh title that i never remember it...

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:22 (twenty-three years ago)

and luc sante = v.grebt writer, tho i never read his book on new york

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:23 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh the film was terrible on every level. Much too long. I do NOT mind long films, but not when the *extra* hour (postponing the *climax*) is superfluous. Let's disregard the love story (gag BLERGH puke), the so-called historical aspect was a JOKE. There were numerous errors. One of which was the fact there were at time only 15 Chinese persons living in NY. Some gangs did not exist at the time. Numerous other things that I chose to forget. In short: this was frigging Titanic on Land. hah! Scorsese obv wanted to make his big hit (and probably did).

― nathalie (nathalie), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:27 (twenty-three years ago)

I've got Last Night on video if you want a lend.

There is CGI in GONY - just pretty bad CGI. But the insistance of building this part of New York is a perfect example of his rockism. (Though why he makes the buildings look so old is bizarre.) This is a fatal flaw in the film, the insistance on staying as true to his imagined history as he can (ie the excessive amount of racial slurs) whilst importing a morality from now (ie the black member of Amsterdams gang).

Its just the Rik Mayall advertised partwork Horrible Histories in film form.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:31 (twenty-three years ago)

titanic on land wd be a fab movie!! it wd be like the episode of thunderbirds where the SIDEWINDER fell into a big pit, except four hours long

this shd be peter jackson's next project

bjork must play tin tin

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:32 (twenty-three years ago)

You know that the Thunderbirds movie is Go? Filming at Pinewood from April. Casting iminent.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:35 (twenty-three years ago)

the sidewinder walked on big legs and frightened the jungle creatures inhabiting some local stock footage: but i feel in the p.jackson version it shd be a vast ocean liner, except travelling on railway tracks

cronenberg must play brains

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:36 (twenty-three years ago)

Can we have the entire Baldwin family as the Tracy family?

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:39 (twenty-three years ago)

''Dunno. Maybe it's just me but I can't stand self-consciously "epic" films. The best film I saw this weekend was "Last Night" on C4; quite moving low-budget Canadian thing about how different people in Toronto spend the last evening of their lives before WW3/Armageddon. Cronenberg acted in it as a psychiatrist.''

yeah i taped this (actually the first 20 mins weren't taped because i can't read the time), its a good idea on paper. must watch it tonight.

GONY: saw the trailer. looks rubbish.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:54 (twenty-three years ago)

All Hollywood films that aren't action flicks are made to look rubbish in the trailer.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:00 (twenty-three years ago)

if i see day lewis with a flag o'er his shoulders
in that monologue bit once more i'll scream.

― piscesboy, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:02 (twenty-three years ago)

[and plenty of indie films too - just not all of them. But when they are bad they are really bad.]

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:03 (twenty-three years ago)

esp. that Brazilian film Central Station.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:05 (twenty-three years ago)

Nick careful :non-hollywood film (or foreign film) != indie film necessarily.

There is a reason why subtitled films generally have crap trailers. They aren't made for our audience, or they are and pretend that the film is not subtitled.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:18 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with felicity.

Don't go if you want a history lesson (when was the last time any Miramax movie gave us historical accuracy anyway?). The story's one big cliché - your classic revenge plot basically. But it's an engaging mainstream movie that you'll actually remember afterwards. DDL seems to be doing a Robert De Niro Noo Yawk accent, btw, so De Niro is sort of in it.

― Jeff W, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:22 (twenty-three years ago)

haha "Titanic on Land" is dead on! but that's obv. a compliment

― Jeff W, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:25 (twenty-three years ago)

I knew I was using sloppy shorthand Pete. Though I am a bit shaky on the whole film financing thing. Can you give me examples of the kind of films that fall between the two? (maybe GONY, actually)

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:25 (twenty-three years ago)

There is always the question of how indie is a film which gets substantial government funding (much world cinema would come under that). And - much like in music - what do we mean by an indie film - these days its more a style of film-making than where the money came from. After all the Studio Sytem (in house writers, producers, directors and actors signed up to a slate) barely exists - beyond the tying of certain producers for the big summer action movies.

And there are substantial film markets outside of Hollywood which have big studio film industries (India obv - but Hong Kong, Japan etc).

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:32 (twenty-three years ago)

More than in indie music though, the general difference is that they are not primarily financed in order to make as big a profit as possible, no?

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:34 (twenty-three years ago)

[I say 'more than' really meaning that in music, there are plenty of minority music genres that also fall under this definition but are never called 'indie']

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:36 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, though you can think of national cinemas or movements (ie French or Dogme) as seperate genres too. But then that was always the problem with indie music - the name came out of the fact they were on indie labels and stuck way past that having any real meaning. But certainly I wasn't suggesting that the businesses of music and film map directly.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Film titles become more like newspaper headlines daily.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:49 (twenty-three years ago)

'Gangs of Birmingham' would be more apt. Imagine the death of those two girls being placed in some epic historical drama in 2103.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:50 (twenty-three years ago)

Skipping 43 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

not yet no, except trailers

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 14:53 (twenty-three years ago)

eh, don't bother, its moment has passed.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 14:55 (twenty-three years ago)

A terrible, terrible movie. Really, bad in every way I could imagine.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:03 (twenty-three years ago)

name some movies it's as bad as!! (this is another thread probably)

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:04 (twenty-three years ago)

Movies it's as bad as? Good question.

Umm... Steven Spielberg's Always.

(actually that was just the first bad movie that came to mind. lemme think of something more appropriate)

― s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:17 (twenty-three years ago)

I mean, when you've got problems with a movie from the smallest editing decisions to the entire (3-hour long) superstructure of the plot, that's a pretty tall order.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:18 (twenty-three years ago)

I mean, the easy answer would be one of those recent Star Wars movies--in terms of there not even being any interesting or distinguishable beats--but surely I can do better than those whipping boys.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Daredevil (except Colin Farrell appears to be enjoying himself)?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:22 (twenty-three years ago)

yes i think you need to hold star wars comparisons in reserve, for when you say (on-stage at the bfi while interviewing daniel day lewis, say): "of course gangs of new york is famously worse — at every level — than the phantom menace"

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:24 (twenty-three years ago)

i think i liked SW more, though perhaps i had slightly higher expectations of g.o.n.y. (not THAT much higher)

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:29 (twenty-three years ago)

I merely hold it up as an example, in my opinion, of a movie completely dysfunctional on every level (& lauded for its design elements)

― s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:36 (twenty-three years ago)

(& working in the epic mode)

― s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:37 (twenty-three years ago)

actually it's apples and oranges really.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:38 (twenty-three years ago)

TS: actually vs. really

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:38 (twenty-three years ago)

am I being dragged into defending my off-the-cuff comparison?

― s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:40 (twenty-three years ago)

apples vs oranges

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:40 (twenty-three years ago)

also, highly anticipated/feared return to a certain type of storytelling by '70s legend

(though Scorsese never really worked in that mode before)

― s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Polo Pony makes good points about DDL. He is a wonderful actor. He stole the movie.

― Cub, Wednesday, 4 June 2003 15:57 (twenty-three years ago)

what is DDL?

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 16:00 (twenty-three years ago)

daniel-day lewis

― s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 4 June 2003 16:01 (twenty-three years ago)

one month passes...

Oh, man, I gave up when it asked me to put in the second disc. I went in expecting ambivalence - I don't like big period epics - and got more than my fair share.

I think there might have been a great 90 minute movie in there.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Friday, 4 July 2003 03:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Day-Lewis hands Di Caprio a knife, and we get 24 frames' reprise of Neeson handing his son the razor at the film's beginning. Just in case we aren't paying attention, or are generally a bit slow on the uptake and don't mind being patronised (cf. Darren Aronofsky films all the way through). There was quite a lot of that kind of thing. Would that be Weinstein or Scorsese or both?

GONY seems to dither about for a while before eventually deciding that it's about the state's attempt to relocate violence from the private to the public sector, and then sidelining its central characters in the same way that they get sidelined by the Draft Riots in the story itself. The monologue at the end seems to more or less admit this, and that Di Caprio seems to fluff it just reinforces the point.

― Neil Willett, Friday, 4 July 2003 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

"Ahh, the Five Points..."

― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 04:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd rather five pints.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 10:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I liked DDL thats about it.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 10:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I liked John Sessions.
No masterpiece but great fun.
Much like Warriors.

― Simeon (Simeon), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 11:42 (twenty-two years ago)

YEah, there was something cool about watch Sessions being hung. The dream of many an early nineties comedy watcher.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 13:27 (twenty-two years ago)

would that it were actually great fun!

― amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

i feel bad for not like scorcese as a director since he seems like a nice guy, with tons of enthusiasm for the movies. the only film of his i even kind of like is taxi driver.

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 16:02 (twenty-two years ago)

i wonder when it will become common wisdom that spielberg (flaws and all) towers over his supposedly more serious peers (coppola, scorcese, de palma).

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

When everyone gets around to watching Always

― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

ouch

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)

i wonder when it will become common wisdom that spielberg (flaws and all) towers over his supposedly more serious peers (coppola, scorcese, de palma).

Oh. my. God. You must be kidding. In cae you hadn't noticed, Speilberg makes bad movies now -- cloying, ham-handed melodramas with serious pacing and plot problems. Even Schindler's List, which certainly has its moments, left me feeling wrung out and manipulated. His movies have all the subtlety of being hit over the head with a rock. And don't ever get me started on AI. Blood on the thread.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

and the circle, it goes round and round, and the painted ponies go up and down...

― amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Ride the painted pony let the spinning wheel spin.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 17:22 (twenty-two years ago)

at the risk of continuing an argument no one seems interested in: i disagree. his last three (AI, Minority Report, and Catch Me if You Can) are three of his best. in fact i think he is in the middle of a golden late period. (after an admittingly poor and patchy middle period)

and saying something has "pacing and plot" problems is pretty close to meaningless. or does that mean you thought it was slow and boring?

and who cares about subtlety? dont mistake it for complexity. my basic point is that taxi driver or raging bull is MUCH less interesting to me than, say, Close Encounters or Jaws.

and please get started on AI!! i'd love to hear your opinion. (as long as it doesnt include the phrase "i liked it until the ending" or "too sentimental")

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 17:24 (twenty-two years ago)

admittedly my first post on spielberg was a bit of a troll, but i find it genuinely annoying that he is considered a hack compared to his peers, who are for some reason (the trite bleakness?) considered "cool".

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 17:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I wonder if there's someone bold enough to say they liked AI from the ending onward (if you will).

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 17:33 (twenty-two years ago)

i liked it very much, and it would not be the same film without the coda.

― amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

and saying something has "pacing and plot" problems is pretty close to meaningless. or does that mean you thought it was slow and boring?

Potato potahto. Yes, it means I find much of his stuff slow and boring, and a lot of his plots don't add up right, and odd things go unexplained, and huge opportunities are missed... *sigh*. What I mean, to put it succinctly, is that his movies have pacing and plot problems. (So eat me.)

and who cares about subtlety? dont mistake it for complexity.

I don't, but there's such a thing as laying it on really fucking thick, and it's distasteful. Your pedantic tone is annoying.

and please get started on AI!!

I have learned to walk away from this one.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

sorry for the "pedantic" tone, i didnt mean for it to come across that way. just trying to poke around your terms a bit!

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 17:44 (twenty-two years ago)

(I'm sure my pedantic tone is annoying, too. But I can't help it! I'm right!)

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 17:45 (twenty-two years ago)

i thought Catch Me If You Can only seemed good because all movies where the character narrarates how he learns a bunch of cool and obscure shit are cool. was it actually good as well?

― Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 18:04 (twenty-two years ago)

of course, narrarrararrration is always cool.

― Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 18:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Catch Me If You Can is I think Spielberg's best film of the last decade or so--pure pop, which is what he does best--though it's about half an hour too long.

I don't understand the adulation for Minority Report. I liked the first half fine (save for SS's fucking horrible jokes) but this movie really couldn't have gone more downhill. Terrible, terrible "reveal" ending, and the less said about that last shot the better. (Also I don't buy that MI is in any way intriguingly "dark").

AI lost me at the Ministry concert.

The thing is I think Spielberg is really fantastic at doing that pure-motion-cinema thing he does best. I'll defend Raiders, Close Encounters etc etc to the death. Nobody does that shit better, with the exception of De Palma. But when he tries to deal with grown-up stuff I just don't think he can handle the depth--his movies are really the strongest when they're at the Raiders (ie serial) level of thematic complexity (though he does have a knack for the awe/wonder thing, even if it has gotten pretty thin--see Jurassic Park for that).

― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 19:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I would have been happy with AI if it had ended with the robot staring at the Blue Angel underwater for eternity.

Minority Report was decent popcorn fare, Tom Hanks+DiCaprio kept me from watching Catch Me If You Can.

But I think the last Spielberg film I really enjoyed was the Last Crusade

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 21:43 (twenty-two years ago)

one year passes...

Goddamn you all, you fairy lacy fragrant ninnysops!

Because you are lukewarm, I spit you out!

― Michael Stuchbery (Mikey Bidness), Friday, 20 August 2004 07:00 (twenty-one years ago)

eight years pass...

Here's the thing. I don't give a tuppenny fuck about your moral conundrum, you meat-headed shit-sack. That's more or less the thing.

― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 06:29 (thirteen years ago)

one month passes...

I was going to revive this, only to see that I already did ~a month ago.

Despite all its flaws, I think this is pretty good, like a poor man's Yojimbo/Sanjuro/Ran.

― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Tuesday, 4 June 2013 18:59 (thirteen years ago)

three years pass...

AMERICAAAAA!!!!!

― Neanderthal, Thursday, 19 January 2017 03:27 (nine years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.