This film/movie is absolutely awful, dreadfully violent, pretty disgusting, and likely to be nightmare-inducing, but it is totally riveting, nonetheless - I give it five stars, but I don't recommend watching it and won't do so myself again!

this film looks incredible on blu-ray. If you love the movie and only have it on DVD buy it in blu-ray and you'll see a new movie. Plus you get $10 back from Sony if you send it the DVD UPC and your blu-ray sales receipt!

Gangs of New York by Martin Scorsese could easily be his worst epic ever! I could never get into this bloody, violent film. Cameron Diaz looks so out of place in this film and that horrible accent she tries to pull off, jeez she belongs in a romantic comedy! There's no doubt Leonardo DiCaprio and Daniel Day-Lewis are gifts to the acting world but even these talented guys can't save this slow, boring train wreck. If you want a great Scorsese film then see Raging Bull.

Disney just slapped the old transfer made for the DVD on this BD disk. The DVD was notorious for bad image quality with grotesquely overdone digital sharpening and noise filtering. The Blu Ray is the same, justh with additional resolution to see all the uglyness with enhanced clarity.
This is a crap transfer that should be withdrawn immediately or it will damage Disney's reputation of releasing high quality HD disks. Yes, it is this bad compared to the state of the art from Disney and other studios.

Scorsese's direction is right-on in this period film. Very impressive acting by Diaz is surprising as well. Lewis and DiCaprio give Oscar worthy performances as well. The screenplay is so convoluted in sections that you'll wonder if it will ever straighten out: It does. This spool of yarn that irritates you to unravel, reveals a beautiful pearl inside.

Amazing movie. Daniel Day Lewis is fantastic as Bill the Butcher. Although I'm not a fan, DiCaprio does a really nice job as well. Long movie but keeps your attention. The violence is done very tastefully so it's not all blood and gore. Highly recommended.

This was one of my all time favorite movies. Definately in the top 10. However, I thought it was a bit long. The length of the movie took away some of the suspense. I thought the movie was similar to a modern day gangster movie. "friends close and enemies closer" Thought it was good.

How can a movie be bad when it is starring not only the great Liam Neeson but also probably the best actor in all of hollywood, Daniel Day-Lewis! Leonardo is also really good! The movie can be long at points to people but it is one of my favorite movies from my movie collection!

Daniel Day Lewis should run away with this film, but even he is not fast enough. He remains an absolute master of his craft, and almost surmounts the dreadful script and supporting cast. The settings truly evoke old New York in the Civil War era, but that's where it ends. WHY did they waste Liam Neeson on a role that's over before the credits begin? As for Di Caprio and Diaz...one can only ask Why?

While the story is good, the content represents decades of New York history spanning a longer period then noted on the screen. Some events did not occur at the same time or during the same era as presented.

Martin Scorsese contuinedto make great films in the form of Gangs Of New York. I don't know the history behind what really happened but I found the film to be entertaining . Leo carrys the film very well as does Cameron Diaz. Daniel Day Lewis does a great job as the villian and the costumes, action sequences are all great. I give this film *** stars.

Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York is hugely ambitious. He attempts to tell the story of the origin of the country in a violent, unceremonious bloodbath. This is a wonderful film even for its flaws. Just as my heading says, it is a near masterpiece. The flaws are there, every reviewer will tell you this.

One of the problems with the film is the character's motivations. Amsterdam returning to avennge his father's death is perfect, but some of his actions seem faulty. He appears to be fickle for no reason at times in the film. Johnny (played by Henry Thomas) is the same way. He betrays his "friend" for no other reason than to drive the plot forward. I could go on in detail about the miscuses of other characters, touching on Diaz's lack of pickpocketing after it served its purpose for the storyline but I'll move on to what I liked about this movie.

For one, it's absolutely beautiful, the sets, the lighting, the shots, everything. The recreation of Old New York is magnificent. I can't imagine why (COUGH*Harbey Weinstein*COUGH) the Academy did not award Dante Ferretti and Martin Scorsese for this wonderfully designed film. The cinematography is just as excellent, with the scenes popping, figurately and at times literally, off the screen. The colors are vibrant and exuberant, the buildings the pefect shade. It looks remarkable.

Another strong point is its absorbing power. Once the story gets going, you just watch, amazed at what a great job Scorsese did. It's not without its pacing problems, but it does a great job of keeping you entertained. The last thirty minutes is when everything falls apart though. The grand draft riots has no buildup. It occurs, which, if it had happened at any other point in the film it would have been all right, at the end, when you need a dynamic ending to push the film into the epic stratisphere.

A near masterpiece that, in the future, will be remembered as one of Scorsese's greatest accomplishments, probably right below Mean Streets (Special Edition), Taxi Driver (Two-Disc Collector's Edition), Raging Bull (Special Edition) and GoodFellas (Two-Disc Special Edition) and in the same company with The King of Comedy, The Last Temptation of Christ - Criterion Collection, The Age of Innocence, and Casino (Widescreen 10th Anniversary Edition).

Now, for the DVD specs. It features a great and informative comentary from Scorsese. It must be heartbreaking talking over a truncated version of one of your most personal projects. Two desing featurettes: Costume and Production. A Discovery Channel documentary on the History of the Five Points, some other Five Points information and U2 "The Hands that Built America" (Golden Globe "Best Original Song" winner) video.

Like stated, it's a near perfect film from one of America's greatest working and overall directors. It's not a must see, but it's real close. The violence may be a little unnerving but it's definitely needed to tell a story like this. I hate the fact that the film's split over two discs but this still earns a high recommendation from me.

Highly recommended.

My husband loved this movie so much that he bought the book (nonfiction) that it was based on.

this is a Martin Scorsese epic,and it certainly has that epic feel.i'm
not sure how accurate it is historically,or if things really looked the
way they do in the movie.i still liked the look of it.to me,it seems a
lot of work went into the whole production and it shows.Daniel Day
Lewis is astonishing(nothing new for him).Leonardo DiCaprio was also
good.Cameron Diaz was not bad,but she didn't really impress me all that
much.her character wasn't as substantial as it could have been.like in
many movies,there's a good supporting cast.the movie is brutally
violent,which is probably an accurate depiction of that time.it is over
two and a half hours long,but it doesn't feel like it.i found myself
becoming very quickly and easily involved in the story,a sign of a good
movie.i wouldn't call it a masterpiece,but it is a very good movie.for
me,Gangs of New York is a 4/5

It might take eons to review a debacle like this one.The period leading up to the NYC draft riots is not well known; suffice to say that the British-Irish tensions throughout the country running rampant is obviously depicted well in this film. But, where is the Chinese-British hatred, mentioned in passing? Better yet, what of the Irish- black confrontations? Secondly, the riot involving the 'priest and the'butcher' could easily have been used to conclude this abomination with the Irish forces victorious. That would have excluded DiCaprio and Diaz and allowed these bumbling, mercurial lovers to take a well needed vacation,helping Timmy and Lassie with their farm chores. Next, we have a cast of characters, too numerous to mention, all flying around the screen, distracting the viewer, a possible prelude to "Ocean's 13" 145 years in advance.On we go! Has anyone ever seen a slower paced film with rioting as a main focus? 167 minutes of film time that was originally scheduled for 239 minutes! This isn't cricket, old man! Summing up, if this movie really did receive as many award nominations as claimed, then I've been beamed into a parallel universe by James T. Kirk,fooling around on his control panel, in a stunt dreamed up by Allen Funt and Durwood Kirby.

This movie was far too long. The graphic violence was just way over the top. Leo DiCaprio was not the guy for the role.

But Daniel Day Lewis's performance was something special. It was perhaps the greatest performance I have ever seen. I cannot fathom how bad this movie would have been without Lewis.

If you are studying acting, watch this film. Lewis will surely inspire you. I don't study acting but the Lewis performance made me want to.

I rate this movie a 3 star. Every star is solely because of Lewis.

talks about the prohibition era back in the 1860's good movie a little bit of violence. I loved Leonardo DiCaprio in this movie he's really good actor.

Martin Scorsese's THE GANGS OF NEW YORK was my personally most disliked film of 2002.I found it to be exceedingly long,endlessly bloody and with a script that covered way too much ground with too many subplots and characters,and an ending that was rushed compared to the first two hours of this 167 minute EPIC!
Well, given time and also a viewing of Ric Burns' 10 hour PBS documentary entitled NEW YORK, I revisited GANGS and appreciated this film so much more.I still see it as very flawed for all of the above reasons, but with the history and in depth background thoroughly in place (especially from PARTS ONE and TWO from the Ric Burns series!)I was able to better fill in all of the necessary information that Scorsese et al simply could not cram in.I could now appreciate what Scorsese was attempting to communicate about his beloved New York City in the years of immigration,political corruption and rebellion that erupted during the Civil War Years.This film can only hint at what actually happened in that time and ALL of the players and affected groups.
I continue to use the word "Appreciate" because I have such enormous respect for Scorsese and his team that has worked on so many films together.There is so much,technically, to marvel at in GANGS, but the screenplay is still the biggest problem that I have with this film.Thanks to Ric Burns who has made me respect this film more over the last five years!
An excellent follow up film to GANGS would be Scorsese's THE AGE OF INNOCENCE which chronicles the next chapter in New York history after the Civil War.I also HIGHLY recommend the 10-hour Version of the PBS Ric Burns NEW YORK.There are additional versions, but the 10 hour will suffice.It is divided into five 2-hour segments,with the first two parts establishing firm foundation for then viewing THE GANGS OF NEW YORK.

I absolutely loved this movie. The acting is so great in it, especially Daniel Day Lewis as the Butcher. I thought the script, particularly the dialogue, was just amazing. To me, this movie is an absolute masterpiece.

This represents the worst of Scorscese (who totally bores me nowadays by the way), recycling the same violent thematic lines present in nearly all his work. This movie is gratuitous and no means educational. Ruined my apprecation of D.D. Lewis as well. Vulgar.

I'm glad I bought this DVD. I like it... a lot. The heavily edited versions on TV, just kill the whole point. It was a violent time... see it for what it was. It's a long film... but I doubt you'll be bored, or wishing it was over.

Based on characters taken from Herbert Ashbury's book, The Gangs of New York, the film opens in 1845 with Amsterdam Vallon who witnesses the death of his gang leader father, The Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) at the hands of William 'Bill the Butcher' Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), the central figure in the naturalised, anti-immigrant America. Cut to some 16 years later and Amsterdam (DiCaprio) returns to his father's old stomping ground of Five Points, Lower Manhattan in a bid to seek vengeance on the man who killed his father.
As consistently violent a film as Scorsese has made, Gangs of New York is thankfully absent of romanticism when it comes to the natives of the hellish Five Points, and his view of the history of his city is honest and true. Daniel Day-Lewis, steels the show..........................

I agree with those reviewers who've seen through this movie. Under the period costumes and the periodic bursts of graphic violence, "Gangs of New York" is a set-bound bore. Bad dialogue, worse accents, and a cliched, spaghetti-Western plot. But, Gogol, if you're going to diss "Once Upon a TIme in America," as innovative a gangster movie as "The Godfather," at least blame the guy who did make it -- Sergio Leone -- not a guy who didn't -- Scorsese.

I was surprised by how enjoyable this movie is. It's just fun and if you're looking for a history lesson from a Hollywood movie, then you obviously know nothing about the American entertainment industry. Read a book. I held off watching this for a long time because I'm not terribly fond of Day-Lewis or DiCaprio. Also, I was wary of watching Cameron Diaz try to act. Finally, the movie bombed at the box office to a chorus of boos and some scathing reviews. Admittedly, this isn't Scorsese's best. The movie is too long, the script is a mess as it sags in spots and jumps around in others and DiCaprio is dubiously cast but he performs well enough. Diaz can't act but she is easy on the eyes. The dialogue lacks the resonance of better epics. In the end, Gangs is just a typical period piece revenge story with the emphasis on costumes, mayhem, and cheerfully swaggering overacted performances. Sort of Braveheart and Gladiator go to NYC in the mid 1800's.

I was very happy to get the Cd that I sent for..........Again it came very fast,I enjoy it very much.......... thank you for giving us Cd's that we can order very fast. I just love Leonardo Dicaprio

When this film came out, I knew it was going to be in deep trouble because of the hype connected to it and director Martin Scorsese's almost endless appearances on the talk show circuit.
The problem isn't in the sets or costuming, both of which are excellent, but rather lies mainly in the almost incoherent, plotless script the actors were saddled with. Historically about as accurate as a Ritz Brothers film, it confabulates various New York events and characters into a hopeless mishmash of misbegotten melodrama.
Special notice should be taken of Daniel Day-Lewis' scenery-chewing performance, which was uniformly terrible. Perhaps I being a bit harsh considering the odiousness of the script, yet the other actors at least managed to rise above the high school play level that marked Day-Lewis' effort. Day-Lewis is without a doubt the hammiest, most untalented performer of his generation.
As to this 2 DVD set, it annoyed me that I had to change DVDs to see the entire film.
The extras included contain all the frenzied hype that surrounded the pre-release of the film and are enjoyable, if you like that sort of thing.
The quality of the digital transfer to DVD was excellent.
Someday there will be a great movie about this turbulent era in New York City but this, unfortunately, isn't it.

For a movie that was almost 3 hours, I never managed to get bored. Viewers will love to hate Daniel D. Lewis in this role. What a performance! Many ancestors could have been part of these gangs. How people survive the times is a thought that comes to mind while watching. I can only hope that the violence depicted in the film was somewhat inflated. Have things changed since the late 1800s? Sure, but gangs still exist and corruption is more rampant than ever. In the 1840s. Natives and Irsih Americans fight to the death in New York, resulting in the death of Irish leader Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson) and Native Bill The Butcher's (Daniel Day Lewis) undisputed rule of the city's criminal underworld. Vallon's son, Amsterdam (Di Caprio) escapes. And after growing into an anonymous young man, returns to reap his revenge, yet unwittingly becomes the butcher's protégé...

Scorsese was bringing a long treasured project to the screen with Gangs, creating a hype that suffered from setbacks, delayed releases and mixed reviews. In hindsight what we have is no masterpiece, but it remains an undeniably good film, with many fine qualities to make up for its flaws.

Scorsese's recreation of the city is stunning: the level of detail completely immerses the viewer into an atmosphere scarcely read of in History books. Moreover, the rich criminal world depicted here maintains a delicate balance of understandability and chaos. Scorsese couples this with his flair for music to create a truly intoxicating mood. The photography reinforces the overall effect tenfold, wonderfully sustained and carrying scattered sparks of pure genius. For example: in one shot, Scorsese pans from newly arrived immigrants who are welcomed, given the nationality, provided a uniform, and enlisted into the Union army to coffins of dead soldiers being unloaded on another peer.

Ultimately, a film lives or dies by its screenplay and acting, and herein lies Gangs of New York's polarizing point. Whether you focus on the slightly uneven story (oddly shortened in places by pressured editing) or the fantastic performances will determine whether Gangs makes it or breaks it, but for its sheer visual power and acting it deserves to be seen. Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, Brendan Gleeson and John C. Reilly are all a joy to see when on top form, but the true feast here is Daniel Day Lewis's grand-standing, violent and xenophobic Bill The Butcher. A role that Robert De Niro (for whom it was originally intended over the years). The chances of this film becoming a favorite are slim, but at the very least you'll walk away with an indelible character to remember.

A few nights ago, my husband and I watched "Gangs of New York" (2002). It was not as bad as everyone said it was. We watched it on a cable network that mercifully cut or blurred most of the extreme violence, nudity, and foul language. The score was phenomenal, especially the use of the violin music. The Irish songs in the background amidst the total squalor and corruption of Five Points were very moving. One senses the indomitable spirit of a fighting people. We always forget what the immigrants experienced when they first landed here. I can see why my great-great-great grandfather preferred to settle in Canada where he had to deal with wolves and some prejudice but otherwise he was alone in the wilderness; no nasty street gangs.

I wish I knew more about the Irish experience in New York City. Was someone like "Bill the Butcher" really allowed to go around chopping people up? People have compared Bill the Butcher, masterfully played by Daniel Day Lewis, to Bill Sykes in Dickens' "Oliver Twist," but I think it is a weak comparison. Bill Sykes was an ignorant, blundering, repellent, murdering psychopath but Bill the Butcher was a cunning, devious, charming, murdering psychopath. The scene when they were all dancing with the candles was sheer beauty. However, it ruined the romance when the hero and heroine had to immediately have a roll in the hay; it destroyed the ambiance, totally.

All the acting was superb. I usually do not care for Cameron Diaz and some critics thought that she was miscast. I beg to differ; I thought she made a great tavern wench, with that tough, hungry, wounded look. Yet she sparkled with audacity and hope, in spite of her surroundings. The sets were gruesomely realistic; we could almost smell the dung and waste in the streets.

Martin Scorsese's Oscar-nominated epic focuses on the rise of Irish and Italian gangs in New York in the mid-1800s. When the leader of the Dead Rabbits is assassinated, his son Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) seeks out the perpetrator, Bill "The Butcher" Poole (a magnificent Daniel Day-Lewis). Yes, it was violent, but a well done movie. Watching the history of that time (on the menu) helped me understand what was going on. Very intense, interesting, I had no clue what would happen next. The acting was superbGangs of New York is a brutal and equally memorable epic that perfectly captures 19th Centurey New York. Sprawing, ambitious, and bold, Martin Scorsese "Gangs" is a vilm of vision and grace.


It's a unique film with its deciption of the era, and its striking visual imagery is astonishing. As many people are dismissive of this masterpiece, the unusual period is at least arresting as the story itself. It may be flawed with the love-interest between Diaz, and DiCaprio, but Daniel Day Lewis characterization of Bill the Butcher is riveting. This is a great movie that shows where modern America has come from. I never understood Why Scorsese still didnt win the Academy Award for best director yet I love his work Casino,GoodFellasm,Taxi Driver,Mean Streets,and Raging Bull and Gangs Of New York is right up there with all of them. This movie has such a uniqe look into Gang life in the 19 century this film he clearly should of won best director for this was an Epic among all dramas this movie is realy great and if you like Scorsese's work you should like this and its a film that will grow with importance in time to come.

With all of the Oscar hype concerning the newly released "The Departed" you might forget that our boy, Marty, has already directed the best Irish Gangster movie of all time: "Gangs of New York". Notable for having a talented Irishman playing American and a talented American playing Irish (how's that for creative juxtoposition?) it is a gritty, wrenching, and incredibly realistic depiction of a city struggling through it's bloody growing pains.

The film portrays the unique structure of Old World style tribal sensibilities superimposed on an emerging modern Industrial nation.

Basically, you are seeing a charming but antiquated clannish way of life being replaced by by a national super-structure - and all of the resulting carnage.

I've never seen this topic tackled before - and I can't imagine that it will ever be done better. This is a wholly unique story and theme. It is, in a word, Amazing.

This was an excellent movie about immigrants and how they were treated when they settled in America. It was just about one place in the US which was New York. Ironically, the statue of Liberty is there which reads:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

What the movie was trying to say is that if the immigrants didn't benefit or agree with the "political party in power" they were not really welcome. With this distrust of others and the greed of money, gangs were formed within each group. The plot then thickened because of one leader was killed by another with the survivor being the dead leader's son seeking revenge against his killers. The plot was excellent with excellent cast roles in the story. I highly recommend this movie that wants to see what it was/is really like for "immigrants" coming to the US.

This film follows Amsterdam (Lonardo Dicapro) a young Irishman who is just emerging from 16 years in a Reformatory for juvenile delinquents. He is the son of the late leader of the Dead Rabbits--a gang of Irish immigrants which had in the past challenged the 'Nativist' gang for rule of the streets. Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day Lewis) is the leader of the Nativists and the killer of Amsterdam's father. Given his freedom from the reformatory, Amsterdam quickly works his way into the Nativist's organization, and begins to plot his revenge...

To begin, I really enjoyed this film. I particularly liked Daniel Day Lewis' performance as Bill "the Butcher" Cutting, the leader of the Nativist gang. He is fearsome, brutal and funny.

Now, I think "Gangs" was a very good film. But what really bothers me is that it could have been great. For instance, aside from Bill "the Butcher", most of the other characters are a little bit superficial. Dicaprio's performance as Amsterdam is about average; I never quite believe his motivation all the way. Cameron Diaz's acting was below average....But again, don't get me wrong--this film is epic [in a good way] and very good overrall. It's Scorsese's best since "Goodfellas" in my opinion.

Daniel-Day Lewis is riveting here, but the love story is terrible, and Diaz is especially bad. Leo is miscast -- he rarely works in period movies -- and Scorcese's vision of a nasty, messy New York is entertaining, if mildly depressing. But you watch this film pretty much for Lewis' magnetic performance.

Strangely enough this film about New York at the time of the Civil War is more about the end of the hellish gate to some kind of lawless and wild wild west it is living through than its real depiction. New York was the immigrating harbour and as such had an enormous and constantly changing population. The turn-over as they say today was extremely rapid. It was also a very cosmopilitan city that accepted all nationalities but also all races. But the political and security organizations and institutions were far from up to what it should have been. In other words, and corruption demultiplied this phenomenon, gangs were everywhere and particularly the good old gang of native Americans, meaning the Americans who had been born in American, in the US, against all the others, the immigrants, the foreigners who come and eat your bread out of your mouth as is well known. Constant fight, constant strife, constant rivalry and daily casualties in a constant violence of every single second, day and night. Killing, hanging, lynching, stabbing, shooting, and so many other variants of these were everyday entertainment and distraction. The film focuses on the Irish as the main opponents of the native American gang. I find the film a little bit complacent as for the picturing and illustrating of this violence, and that pushes other issues a little bit in the background, for instance the rich bourgeoisie of fifth avenue, the merchants and the industrialists. The working class in the sweatshops are not shown either. This is slightly regrettable, because we do not understand then why politicians feel obliged to have some kind of alliance with one gang or the other. They have to choose such an alliance as opposed to the possibility for the working class poor to come together and join forces with the various minorities and fight for their own candidates in the elections. The Civil War provides the best surrounding environment for such a film too because of the anti-draft movement that develops in New York around 1863-64. This anti-draft movement could be the element that might make all the segments of the poor coalesce in one invincible majority. Scorsese shows very well, through the gangs and through the two leaders of native Americans and the Irish, how a possible alliance could have come out of this situation, but the gang war going on prevents basic interests to prevail in the name of jingoistic community interests. Scorsese seems to be wishing for us to believe that gang violence has always been the way for the establishment in New York to sail through all tempests, storms and other social hurricanes. It is a very pessimistic film that opens no perspective whatsoever. Then what about the acting of the various actors ? It is essentially Leornardo Di Caprio that I observed, following his iron hard and steel cold eyes in the film. He is so static most of the time, and when he is not , when he is moving he seems to be sliding slowly across the room, the street or the screen without any body language. Even his face seems to be expressionless except for his eyes. He looks like an actor who has risen or been raised in an environment of violence that has left some kind of shock in him, the shock that makes him step back, melt in the wall tapestry and keep out of trouble all the time. Will he ever learn how to use his body to express feelings, action, speed, and so many elements that have to be made visible on the screen because they cannot be described with words ? He has a real problem now his adolescent looks and naivety and charm have gone and he is obliged to move a body and move in it that has become slightly too heavy for him. Having seen what he did in The Departed, I believe he can learn, but he definitely still has a lot to improve. Good luck on the way to San Francisco.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne

`Gangs of New York' is definitely not a great movie, but it's not as bad as some have labeled it either. It's certainly long enough, although with a film of this epic grandeur it probably could have used some more battle time. The weakness in this film falls in the hands of lead actor Leonardo DiCaprio who fails miserably to command his role. He lets Daniel Day-Lewis run away with the entire show, and run he does. As Bill `The Butcher' Cutting, Day-Lewis is at his most charismatic and impressive, chewing up every ounce of scenery at his disposal, and at an almost three-hour running rate he has quite a bit of time at hand.

The film takes place in 1863 and revolves around Amsterdam Vallon (DiCaprio) as he strives to avenge his father's death at the hands of Bill Cutting. Leo never quite develops his character fully and leaves the viewer a bit tired of seeing him. The plot drags out a bit too much and I found myself growing bored unless I was watching Day-Lewis chew, chew and chew some more. Cameron Diaz does well but the film has little use for her and it shows except for one scene involving a knife throwing scene with Daniel where their chemistry is bright and she makes good for herself.

This isn't, as I mentioned, a great movie but it's a decent one that has its share of good moments, most of which include the aforementioned Daniel Day-Lewis. This film also sports a rich cast of supporting players like John C. Reilly (just love him) and Jim Broadbent and of course is rich and beautifully shot by none other than acclaimed director Martin Scorsese who proves once again why he's so well loved. It's not a movie you'll hate, but you may end up scratching your head as to how it received 10 Oscar nominations, most shocking being that Best Picture nod that could have gone elsewhere.