Critic Review - eFilmCritic.com

Why did Scorsese spend three decades thirsting to make this movie? It's nowhere clear on the screen.

February 13, 2008 Full Review Source: eFilmCritic.com | Comments (14)
eFilmCritic.com

Comments

bryanmTM40

Bryan Wendland

Your crazy and you need to quit your job because the craziness inside of you is imparing your judgement on films...

Jul 19 - 02:43 PM

X Y.

X Y

Yeah, quit your ****ing job, homo.

May 21 - 11:51 PM

boris s.

boris shusterman

you need to watch that movie again..were you looking at the commercials before the movie started? Try to pay attention to the screen when the movie is actually playing.

Dec 7 - 04:53 AM

Joseph U.

Joseph Upshaw

You get paid to write this drivel?

Feb 21 - 11:07 AM

Sherbert Lemon

kim nguyen

are you serious? this was brilliant. it was historically accurate and the plot was executed excellently. learn to review movies properly.

Apr 8 - 08:35 PM

Christian Back

Christian Back

People, quit trolling. He obviously has a different opinion than you. Boo-hoo.

Apr 9 - 09:51 PM

KJ Cassidy

kurt cassidy

HAHAH
Your not original by saying that, you know that, right?
The "Trollers" have there own oppinion that "Trolling" is good. And you have your oppinion that "Trolling" is bad. When it comes to oppinion, anything you say becomes it.

Jun 24 - 10:26 AM

Armond Whites No. 1 Fan

Tyler Parke

Nov 23 - 02:29 PM

Armond Whites No. 1 Fan

Tyler Parke

Everybody that has posted a comment here so far sounds like a completely ignorant and biased idiot. I just thought I'd say that.

Nov 23 - 02:30 PM

Armond Whites No. 1 Fan

Tyler Parke

Everybody that has posted a comment here so far sounds like a completely ignorant and biased idiot. I just thought I'd say that.

Nov 23 - 02:30 PM

Armond Whites No. 1 Fan

Tyler Parke

Everybody that has posted a comment here so far sounds like a completely ignorant and biased idiot. I just thought I'd say that.

Nov 23 - 02:30 PM

Jonathan S.

Jonathan Sicard

I can except different opinions on things, but this review is just shit. i just thought I'd say that.

Jun 17 - 01:07 PM

Harry May

Harry May

I think this film isn't as critically acclaimed as it should be because it brings up a bitter taste in the mouths of Americans. It's a horrible part of history that they don't want people to know. I think it's very rare that a great historical film like this comes about, it's far better than any of the historical films post-Schindler's List Spielberg has released. Look at 'Amistad' it portrays the Americans in a good light, as if they weren't really part of the slave trade and don't get me started on 'Saving Private Ryan', were there no British soldiers in France during WWII? If you're going to make a historical film about a terrible period you've got to show it at it's most ugliness and that's what Gangs of New York does.

Jan 26 - 09:36 AM

Ethan Housley

Ethan Housley

Uhhhh Harry Im pretty sure Amistad didnt show Americans in a good light as a matter of fact most of the Americans were bad guys in that movie. And as for Saving Private Ryan, DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE MOVIE!!!!!! There is a reason why there were no British in that movie because it was about AMERICA'S key word AMERICA'S role on D-Day and more about Omaha Beach and a squad of AMERICAN soldiers trying to bring home an AMERICAN soldier. What Spielberg did was captured the horrors and chaos of Omaha Beach and showed how random and unexpected war really was. Omaha Beach was the ugliest part of D-Day and Spielberg captured what it was like perfectly. And no offense, but you sound really anti-american. The only thing I agree with you with is the fact that this movie should be more critically acclaimed than it is.

Jan 27 - 05:12 PM

Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile