What happened to "Gangs Of New York"? A Scorsese-directed pic, it was slated to be Miramax's big holiday release for 2001.

According to upcomingmovies.com, Miramax has moved it to summer 2002 so as to position it as an Oscar contender for that year. (Why, it doesn't say. Maybe the field this year was already overcrowded?)

I also read in the "Star-Ledger" yesterday that the idea of an anarchic Manhattan was, at the moment, unsuitable, which also forced postponement of "Gangs Of New York."

Summer's come and (almost) gone. Now I heard that "Gangs Of New York" is due for Christmas 2002. Also, that it is $100 million over budget.

This is a great movie, but some people need to do their addition in the film. They say the opening sequence takes place in 1846. Then it says 16 years later, which is 1862. In the movie there is a celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation, which was effective January 1, 1863. Either the celebration was early or the dating of the film is wrong. Also I noticed there was no snow on the ground ever during the winter of 1862-63. Do they know something about that winter that we don't? (I know they filmed the movie in Italy, where I think it only snows in the higher elevation.) It seems as if during this three hour running time, hardly any time has passed. Bill the Butcher claims to be 47 years old. That would make his birthdate 1815 or 1816, depending on what timetable you believe. Yet he says his father in 1814! How can he be his father if he died in 1814 and was born in 1816? I know it is possible if he were born in 1815. Something does not sound right there. In the movie there is a celebration of the 16th anniversary of the death of Amsterdam's father. Yet by the time they get to it, it feels like it should be the 17th anniversary of the event! It's hard to tell where 1862 ends and 1863 begins in this movie. It feels like monthes pass in the movie. The history books say the draft riot was in 1863. So when did the year pass? The movie should have been clearer in time passage.

SPOILERS!

Phew! Let's examine this film:

*It's too long. There are a lot of scenes that could be cut without too much trouble (frankly, almost all of Cameron Diaz's part could be cut, since the filmmakers don't draw on what's most important--her relationship with Bill the Butcher). Near the middle my attention wavered.

*I can't decide if the ending is an ironic look on how time has passed Bill the Butcher and Amsterdam by (their gang squabbling is irrelevant) or if it's just a cop-out. It is undeniably well-made.

*Daniel Day-Lewis is excellent as Bill the Butcher--the accent, the mannerisms, the sadism hiding under charm. Di Caprio is acceptable as Amsterdam (let down a tad by a script that seems very uninterested in its protagonist). Cameron Diaz is good as Jenny, but as I've said, her character is very unimportant.

*The film has a wide crop of great supporting actors and characters (Happy Jack the loquacious policeman, the hot-tempered aide McGloin, Boss Tweed, Johnny the Two-Timer, Big Monk, etc.) that are well played (although I must point out that many of them are unnecessary).

*The best part of the film is the look and feel of the times. It truly seems like old New York, and the scenery is epic to behold.

*Amsterdam's narration is a bad idea, mainly because it comes and goes when the story needs it, also because DiCaprio simply does not have the right voice to narrate.

A pretty good film IMHO, raised more than a few notches by Daniel Day-Lewis' performance, and those of one or two of the supports, like Brendan Gleeson and Jim Broadbent. But, as an Irishman, I gotta say that DiCaprio (not my favourite person in the world at the best of times) committed an absolute CRIME against the Irish accent here. I don't quite see what is so difficult about faking it, but those who can actually do it are few and far between, and DiCaprio is not among their numbers..... But at least they did actually throw a bit of spoken Irish in. Makes sense for a whole load of Irish people to use it once or twice....

This is a great movie, but some people need to do their addition in the film. They say the opening sequence takes place in 1846. Then it says 16 years later, which is 1862. In the movie there is a celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation, which was effective January 1, 1863. Either the celebration was early or the dating of the film is wrong. ...

Usually, when a caption in a film states something like "16 years later", it means "close to or at least 16 years later, but not yet 17 years later", and not necessarily "5,844 (365.25 x 16) days later". So if the movie began in late 1846, then "16 years later (plus a relatively few weeks)" could logically change the movie setting to early 1863.

...
Bill the Butcher claims to be 47 years old. That would make his birthdate 1815 or 1816, depending on what timetable you believe. Yet he says his father [died] in 1814! How can he be [47 if] his father...died in 1814 and [he] was born in 1816? I know it is possible if he were born in 1815. Something does not sound right there.

If Bill the Butcher claims to be 47 years old in 1863, assuming he has not already had a birthday in 1863 as of the date of Bill's claim, this means that Bill was born in 1815. If Bill was born in 1815, then Bill's biological father could logically have died in 1814, as Bill could have been conceived in 1814 and born in 1815.

In the movie there is a celebration of the 16th anniversary of the death of Amsterdam's father. Yet by the time they get to it, it feels like it should be the 17th anniversary of the event! It's hard to tell where 1862 ends and 1863 begins in this movie. It feels like monthes pass in the movie. The history books say the draft riot was in 1863. So when did the year pass? The movie should have been clearer in time passage.

If the 16th anniversary celebration of Priest Vallon's (Amsterdam's father's) death took place in late 1862, then there probably is no mistake in the movie, since Priest Vallon probably died in late 1846.

...But, as an Irishman, I gotta say that DiCaprio (not my favourite person in the world at the best of times) committed an absolute CRIME against the Irish accent here. I don't quite see what is so difficult about faking it, but those who can actually do it are few and far between, and DiCaprio is not among their numbers..... But at least they did actually throw a bit of spoken Irish in. Makes sense for a whole load of Irish people to use it once or twice....

One thing to remember about the accents of movie characters is that the actor's objective ideally is not to effect a generic version of an accent particular to a certain ethnic or geographic group, but to effect the accent of the particular person the actor is portraying. In other words, DiCaprio's objective was to effect Amsterdam's accent, not an Irish accent. After all, even within various ethnic or geographic groups, individual accents and speech patterns vary (especially in large urban areas). Factors which went into how DiCaprio effected Amsterdam's accent likely included Amsterdam's social environment before and after his father was killed, the amount of time Amsterdam spent in each of those environments, and Amsterdam's ages in those environments.

I agree that accents can vary within a group. And I'm not saying that everyone in Ireland talks with a diddley-oi leprechaun accent, but to me it just sounded like DiCaprio was aiming for a movie standard Irish accent and failing. Maybe I'm not giving him due credit, but I somehow doubt that he considered any of the factors which you did.

Sorry, but I gotta go with cableface on this one -his accent was terrible. Tom Cruise did a better job on Far and Away and that's saying something. However, I will concede that maybe I've just been preconditioned to believe that all people not from my country, attempting to immitate my accent, will fail - it's a kind of smugness we non-Americans tend to exhibit every time a big Hollywood star plays someone from one of our countries. For example I thought Mel Gibson did a great Scottish accent in Braveheart, but I hear he took some slack in Glasgow.

For the record though, Ryan, your arguement about why he might have a bizzare accent is very well thought out and plausible. The only thing is, Hollywood usually lets believability overrule realism (for example, the castle's in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, given the time the film was set, would actually have been painted red - or something - but the filmakers thought that the audiences wouldn't buy this). What was my point? - oh yeah - so I'm saying that in all of the Irish accents it is possible to encounter - and for such a small country, we have a LOT of accents, Leonardo's accent didn't resemble any I've ever heard. Like I said, sorry if this sounds smug. I'm sure if your Scottish it will sound spot on!

What I think should be considered regarding Amsterdam's accent as effected by Leonardo DiCaprio is that although Amsterdam is Irish (in a manner of speaking), he's not Irish born and raised. He's probably New York City born, and he spent most of ages 6 through 22 years (I'm guessing) in a New York reform school for boys (where the accents almost certainly weren't exclusively Irish).

Nit in the fight/riot sequences where Cameron Diaz gets thumped and beaten up by the old lady and the guy and then gets away - one minute she's crawling up the side of a crate, then a bit later, you see her in long shot and she's crawling towards the crate, not having reached it yet.

"*I can't decide if the ending is an ironic look on how time has passed Bill the Butcher and Amsterdam by (their gang squabbling is irrelevant) or if it's just a cop-out. It is undeniably well-made."

I agree, but I absolutely LOVED it. As with all the framing shots - beautiful. But then that's kind of what I expected, I guess.