The GANGS of NEW YORK was a great movie!

[scotrace]

My own controversial opinion

fftopic: The Lord of the Rings trilogy was great, but it could have been SO much better with Daniel Day Lewis as Aragorn. Mortensen was such a mumbling weenie I never believed him for an instant.

Peter Jackson spends BIG for CGI, skimps on hiring talent to buy relative unknowns.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Sorry, I can't agree. Viggo's lack of presence enhanced the earlier scruffy aspect of the role (as the mysterious Strider), and helped make his reluctance to accept the mantle of King more believable.

Nothing against DDL, who's a great actor...

Let's just be glad that they didn't go with Stuart Townsend!

 

[Sunny]

Viggo's lack of presence enhanced the earlier scruffy aspect of the role (as the mysterious Strider), and helped make his reluctance to accept the mantle of King more believable.

fftopic: Nothing wrong with scruffy, as that's definitely the way a Ranger should be. But I'm afraid Aragorn's reluctance to pursue kingship was entirely Peter Jackson's invention. Viggo suited his conception of Aragorn, but definitely lacked the kingliness and majesty of the true Aragorn.

Ahem! Trying desperately to be pertinent to the topic. I haven't even seen Gangs of New York. But I've reenacted the Civil War for 9 years, and I've already read about the the inaccuracies Vladimir pointed out. I've tried to look up some old discussions, but they've all disappeared. Still, women's clothing of the early 1860s is something Hollywood has never gotten quite right. They've made a lot of progress, but the Brits still do it so much better. And the biggest hangup is the still the HAIR. [/soapbox]

I concur about contemporary-looking actors and actresses. I still haven't figured out why some "have it" and some don't. Surely people haven't changed that much in a hundred years or two!

 

[Tomasso]

I concur about contemporary-looking actors and actresses. I still haven't figured out why some "have it" and some don't. Surely people haven't changed that much in a hundred years or two!

Sunny, I agree that there's a certain "look" that allows an actor to play a period piece. But, I've noticed that the character actors are more tightly casted, where the lead actors are given much more leeway. I suppose some concessions must be made to box office realities .

 

[Novella]

I guess I'm one of the only people who didn't enjoy the film. I haven't watched it since it was originally released so maybe it deserves a second viewing, but my feelings are still pretty strong from watching it in the theater. I remember disliking it because it seemed cartoonish. Rather than making the characters larger than life I felt like the cartoonishness detracted from the film's impact and turned it into something more akin to a comedy than a powerful drama. I watched it with high hopes for a great film, but left the theater disappointed. I thought it was a movie that had potential as the acting talent was (for the most part) there, and the topic was an interesting one, but it just didn't push the right buttons for me.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

I think I had the same reaction, Novella. In fact, right now I can't even remember the plot of the film exactly but only remember the funny bits such as the "war" over fighting that fire with the guy putting a barrel over the standpipe so the fire brigade can't see it.

 

[Doh!]

I didn't care much for it, either. I just didn't buy Leo as a tough guy, and the gang fights weren't nearly gritty enough. When you show me a guy sharpening a pointy thing (I forget what it was now) before the fight but then he doesn't actually use it IN the fight, I cry foul!

I haven't seen it since it came out, but that's all I really recall about it. I did like DDL, though.