Gangs of New York Movie Review

Historical films can be really interesting when they show you an obscure bit of history that typically isn’t covered in the usual history class. These films are especially interesting when the historical events are still affecting modern society. Gangs of New York (2002) showed us how gang warfare was prevalent even in mid-1800 and how even in those days Americans were leery and unwelcoming of immigrants.

In 1846, as waves of Irish immigrants poured into the New York neighborhood of Five Points, a number of citizens of British and Dutch heritage who were born in the United States began making an open display of their resentment toward the new arrivals. William Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), better known as “Bill the Butcher” for his deadly skill with a knife, bands his fellow “Native Americans” into a gang to take on the Irish immigrants. The immigrants in turn form a gang of their own, “The Dead Rabbits,” organized by Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson). After an especially bloody clash between the Natives and the Rabbits which leaves Vallon dead, his son goes missing; the boy ends up in a brutal reform school before returning to the Five Points in 1862 by the name Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio). Now a strapping adult who has learned how to fight, Amsterdam has come to seek vengeance against Bill the Butcher, whose underworld control of the Five Points through violence and intimidation has merged with the open corruption of New York politician William “Boss” Tweed (Jim Broadbent). Amsterdam gradually penetrates Bill the Butcher’s inner circle, and soon becomes his trusted assistant. Amsterdam also finds himself falling for Jenny Everdeane (Cameron Diaz), a beautiful street-smart thief who was once involved with Bill. Amsterdam learns a great deal from Bill, but before he can turn the tables on the man who killed his father, his true identity is exposed even though he has concealed it from nearly everyone, including Jenny. With more Irish immigrants pouring in by the day, Amsterdam soon has an army to overthrow the rival gang. Before long, an all out turf war breaks out in all areas of New York City.

Honestly, I didn’t realize that gangs and street warfare were around in the mid-1800’s. I guess I (and presumably others) have this idea of relatively quaint and peaceful times until the Civil War broke out. That’s probably because history classes talk about politics and wars and less about social issues, culture, and other interesting things. No wonder these true events tend to fall through the cracks in our history books.

Gangs of New York is an interesting crime drama. Usually crime dramas are reserved for gangsters of the prohibition era of the 1920’s or modern underworld dealings. The fact that Gangs of New York challenges our notion of a crime drama makes it all the more interesting. It still has all the basic components that a crime story would have; gangs fighting, backstabbing one another, gaining power through intimidation and murder, and loose women as part of their spoils after victory. It will still remind you of modern underworld dealings that you see in contemporary movies or even in the news.

As a film, I wasn’t all that impressed with it. The movie makes some great political statements and commentary on the culture of its day that is still applicable to our day, such as how we treat immigrants. We might welcome them to our country but only give them the worst that our country has to offer; Irish immigrants were promised citizenship on the condition that they sign up to fight in the Civil War on the front lines.

One of the better parts of Gangs of New York was the colorful characters, which included a hired club named Monk (Brendan Gleeson) and a shopkeeper named Happy Jack (John C. Reilly). But easily the best character was Bill the Butcher, one of the best villains in modern film. He has strangely elaborate diction, a choked accent, and a tendency to combine ruthlessness with philosophy. He is disturbing with this uncanny use of blades and meat cleavers. While the cast was impressive, Daniel Day-Lewis really stole the show and made the movie worth seeing.

Gangs of New York is not one of Martin Scorsese’s greatest films, but even so it’s a good movie. There are a couple of scenes that are truly impressive and the tension is palpable. There’s amazing camera work with long moving camera shots. The sets and costumes are amazingly convincing. The movie seems longer than what I thought was necessary; there were a few times I was starting to get bored, but you will not be disappointed if you stick with the film. I recommend seeing it, but I personally wasn’t so taken with the movie as to go out and get my own copy to watch again and again. It’s an above average renter that I think should be watched at least once.

Is there an obscure bit of history that you would love to see made into a movie? I think a movie about the story of Alan Turing would be fascinating, but tragic. Comment below and tell me what kind of obscure historical event or figure you'd like to see a movie made about.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits Movie Review

Stop-motion animation seems to be a dying art. It used to be featured much more frequently; not all of them were targeted towards young audiences. Now we get family friendly films once a blue moon, but even then it seems like the medium is perpetuated primarily by Tim Burton. Nevertheless, we still received a great stop-motion animated film with The Pirates! Band of Misfits (2012).

After years of humiliation and failed attempts to win the coveted Pirate of the Year Award, Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) and his oddball crew take on the most renowned pirates in the world in a race to pillage the most booty. In their efforts, they cross paths with the lovelorn scientist Charles Darwin (The Doctor David Tennant), who persuades the Captain that the crew’s prized “parrot,” Polly, could be the answer to the untold riches they are searching for. Their adventure takes them to Victorian London where they meet the notorious pirate-hating Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton). It soon unfolds that Darwin’s motives for helping the crew are not what they seem, and that the Queen has an evil hidden agenda of her own. The Pirate Captain must choose between basking in the glory of being crowned Pirate of the Year, or staying faithful to his trusted crew.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits has an all-star cast. In addition to the names mentioned above, there is also Martin Freeman, Anton Yelchin, Jeremy Pivin, Salma Hayek, Brian Blessed, and Brendan Gleeson. You couldn’t ask for a more diverse array of comical UK actors for this slapstick zany adventure.

The Pirates! was animated by the same stop-motion animation crew that did Chicken Run (2000) and the Wallace and Gromit movie The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005). The animation is phenomenal to say the least. The movement is smooth, seamless, and full of intricate subtleties and detail. Similar to Gromit in the Were-Rabbit film, there is also a character with no actual dialogue. Darwin’s “Man-Panzee” is so expressive that you can still tell what is going through the character’s mind without having the character verbalizing it. That just goes to show how well this movie was animated.

Something I thought was annoying in both Chicken Run and Were-Rabbit was the blatant vegetarian and animal rights themes in them. Vegetarianism and animal rights aren’t bad, but those films got rather preachy and beat you over the head with the concepts. The Pirates did not do that, thank goodness. In fact, the pirate crew regularly had “ham night” for dinner. It was not bashing vegetarianism, I’m just glad I wasn’t having a bunch of animal-rights-thumping pirates trying to convince me to eat tofu. That would have been incredibly stupid.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits is full of zany and joyfully silly gags. There are times it feels like an old Loony Tunes cartoon with some distinctive British wit. People are hit with frying pans, causing the frying pan to take on the shape of the person’s face. The face on a painting becomes goofy and distorted after being hit by a cannonball. Skidding tire sounds are made when the pirate ship makes sharp turns. There’s also more trap door gags than you can shake a stick at. I’d hazard a guess that adults who grew up with Loony Tunes will get a bigger kick out of this movie than kids will.

The story is pretty simple and doesn’t stand out as a stellar piece of writing. It feels pretty childish, but I think that’s what makes it so fun. It’s got a Saturday morning cartoon quality to it, but it has lots of gags that will fly over kids’ head and keep adults laughing. It also has simple enough plot for young viewers to understand and enough slapstick to keep them involved. This movie might appeal most to adult viewers who are fans of Monty Python or The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Just take it as it is; a silly, slapstick comedy that the whole family will enjoy.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits was certainly a fun movie. I enjoyed it and it kept me laughing throughout. This is a perfect movie for a family movie night. Kids will love it and adults will enjoy it, too. The number of animated characters moving about on the screen at one time was impressive enough; that is very complicated and difficult to achieve in stop-motion animation. But the detail beyond that is incredible to watch. I didn’t quite love it enough to want to buy a copy of it, but I imagine most families with young kids will want a copy of their own.

What is your favorite stop-motion animated film? Comment below and tell me why!

The Secret of Kells Movie Review

It seems that a lot of people think that animated movies are targeted exclusively towards small children, and consider all animated movies to be “Disney Movies.” Disney doesn’t have a monopoly on animated movies, nor are animated movies exclusively intended for small children. It’s so nice to come across a good animated movie that is not made by Disney, Warner Brothers, or Dream Works. Such movies are hard to come by, but are worth searching for more often than not. The Irish-French-Belgian foreign film The Secret of Kells (2009) was a great find!

The story is set in the eighth century and gives a fictionalized account of the creation of the Book of Kells, an illuminated manuscript of the four Gospels in Latin. Abbot Cellach (Brendan Gleeson) is obsessed with building a protective wall around the early-Christian Abbey of Kells to protect it from marauding Viking raiders. When master illuminator (an old term for illustrator) Aidan of Iona (Mick Lally) arrives at the monastery, Abbot’s young nephew Brendan (Evan McGuire) is fascinated by Aidan and the unfinished book he brings with him. Aidan allows Brendan to help work on the book by sending Brendan beyond the walls of the Abbey and into the forest beyond to collect a specific kind of berries to make brilliant green ink. Having never set foot outside the Abbey walls, Brendan becomes lost. He is rescued by a fairy girl named Aisling (Christen Mooney) who helps him along the way. With barbarian Vikings closing in, can Brendan’s determination and artistic vision illuminate the darkness, and show that enlightenment is the best fortification against evil?

This really is a neat story. It’s brimming with Irish legend and mythology. Several characters and places were real people and location. Look up Abby of Kells and the Book of Kells; they really do exist. Aidan of Iona was also a real person. Even Aidan’s pet cat, Pangur Bán, is based on an old Irish poem written by a monk about his cat. Stick around during the closing credits, a verse from this poem is read. Brendan has to face Crom Cruach, deity of Irish mythology whose worship is said to have been ended by St. Partick. Aisling is a forest spirit with abilities drawn from Irish fairy tales. There’s so much culture and history imbued within the story, and it makes the movie fascinating! It reminds me of an Irish version of Disney’s Mulan (1998) which was heavily based on Chinese legend and mythology.

Since The Book of Kells is essentially the first four Gospels of the New Testament, the movie had ample opportunity to become religious and preachy. I could see that not settling well with some viewers. Really, the only religious elements in the movie are some crosses seen around the monastery. The content of Aidan’s book isn’t even specifically discussed, but is established to be important for enlightenment though not the Christian religious creed specifically. The movie focused on the history and mythology, not religiosity.

I cannot speak highly enough about the animation in this film. It has stylized 2-D animation overflowing with fascinating little detail. The real Book of Kells is teeming with decorations in the margins, and I think the animators tried to capture that style in The Secret of Kells. The colors are brilliant and the details were astonishing. Many scenes had patterned borders that are magnificent to look at. There are some scenes that are so captivating that I became annoyed when the scene changed because I wasn’t done looking at the pretty images! The animation is art that is meant to be admired, not merely to express a story through visuals.

The Secret of Kells was so good. It was graphically stunning and so captivating to watch. The story is highly interesting and heralds back to old mythologies, legends, and real world histories. I’d love to get a copy of this on Blu-Ray. Young children as well as mature adults will enjoy this film, I’m sure. The humor and action coupled with the stunning animation will surely captivate audiences of all ages.

Watch the trailer and see how stunning this animation is in action.

What are some legends or mythologies that you would love to see used in a movie? Comment below and tell me all about it!

28 Days Later Movie Review

Danny Boyle is responsible for some great and critically acclaimed films which include 127 Hours (2010) and Slumdog Millionaire (2008). Once, while discussing zombies with friends, I was shamed for not having seen Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later (2002). Apparently you can’t discuss zombies with any kind of authority without having seen it. I managed to see it recently; now I can talk about zombies.

British animal liberation activists break into a laboratory in Cambridge to free some chimpanzees being used for medical research. A scientist begs them not to free the chimps because they are infected with a virus that causes rage. He is ignored and the chimps escape. Twenty-eight days later, a young man named Jim (Cillian Murphy) awakens from a coma, alone, and in an abandoned hospital. He wanders out to find London completely empty. Jim draws the attention of some zombie-like humans who begin chasing after him. He’s rescued by Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley) who explain about the rage virus and how it has decimated the country in a matter of days. They meet up with man named Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Megan Burns) who are following a radio broadcast promising a cure for the virus. When they reach the source of the radio, they find some corrupt renegade military personnel, lead by Major Henry West (The Doctor Christopher Eccleston). The military platoon quickly proves as much a threat as the rage-zombies.

Zombies have become such a common theme in movies, literature, comic books, and video games that I’m starting to wonder why people in zombie movies don’t seem to know what zombies are when they see them. I know several real people who have zombie survival strategies planned out, yet no one in movies or video games ever seems to have heard of zombies.

I don’t recall hearing the word “zombie” in 28 Days Later. I think that’s a good thing; actually calling them “zombies” would have weakened the movie and made it seem cliché. The infected weren’t your average zombies. They weren’t shambling, decomposing corpses; they were awake, alert, and filled with uncontrollable rage. The rage virus had more of a psychological effect than a physiological one. This seemed like a modern metaphor for social rage (road rage, air rage, etc). Rather than having a virus that kills victims and turns them into monsters, the virus amplifies something negative that is already in each and every person to levels beyond their control. Having the existing negative qualities deteriorate us into monsters is much more disquieting, I think.

Good science fiction makes commentary on contemporary issues in a unique, metaphorical way. The drive behind classic zombie movies revolved around fear of nuclear power and its possible ramifications. I think the rage-virus is more applicable to this generation; society seems much more frightened of disease than of nuclear power. Just think of the real world reactions to anthrax bioterrorism, the bird flu, swine flu, mad cow disease, and foot-and-mouth disease. Does a viral outbreak really terrify us these days more than a nuclear holocaust?

I could go on about the social commentary derived from this excellent film, but how does it stand as a zombie movie? Pretty darn well. Even if you just want to watch a movie about a few people struggling to survive a zombie apocalypse, 28 Days Later is a good movie to watch. It’s got a fairly small cast which gives the movie ample amount of time to develop the characters into people we care about. We even see them spiral downward from a civilized state into a survivalist mentality that doesn’t differentiate them much from the rage-zombies they are trying to avoid, even without becoming infected. And there is plenty of blood splattering gore to appease fans of zombies and the horror genre.

Parts of 28 Days Later are so obviously cheap that it is sometimes distracting. A lot of the sets were claustrophobically small; there even was a scene filmed with a Canon XL1 digital camcorder that anyone could get on Amazon.com. However, in spite of its low production budget, the movie is so well executed that you can’t help but get drawn into it. You become aware of how cheap the movie is only fleetingly, and then get sucked back into the film right away.

This movie is really great; Zombie mayhem, some excellent actors portraying good characters, social allegory, suspense, and fun, unabashed violence. I wouldn’t recommend this to younger audiences; the imagery gets pretty intense. I cringed watching it and occasionally had to hide under my zombie-proof blanket. 28 Days Later was a fun zombie flick to watch and was highly satisfying. I’m looking for a copy on Blu-Ray for my shelf.

There are lots of types of zombies in movies and video games. What’s your favorite kind and where are they from? Comment below; let’s talk zombies!