MovieChat Forums > Gangs of New York (2002) Discussion > Major Weakness in the Plot

Major Weakness in the Plot

posted 13 years ago by SnoozeAlarm
4 replies | jump to latest

I thought the movie on the whole was quite good -- my main problem was with the plot. The basic premise is fine, but the development is quite haphazard.

For me the weakest part is the confrontation scene in front of the church. This is perhaps the biggest turning point of the movie -- and there has been virtually nothing leading up to it.

Instead, they spent such a long time on pick-pocket scenes and other far less vital things. It's as if someone suddenly says: hey, guys, the film's been going on for well over 2 hours, and nothing much has really happened, and we've got about 40 minutes to put in some meaty story here! And then someone else says: I know, we'll stage a huge confrontation scene in front of the church! Oh, yeah! That's great!

So I guess that means that my main problem is with the script itself, as opposed to the actors or the director.

EDIT: I now watched the final 40 minutes of the film, and I have just one thing to say:

WTF??!?!

It just got worse and worse. The final 40 minutes is just one long random hodge-podge of scenes thrown together haphazardly. Not that each scene in itself is badly done. Each scene taken on its own is just fine, but together, it's a mess.

Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!

[–] alicorna 12 years ago

I agree. It seemed overly long and rambling in places, and there was no clear story arc. There was a prologue, and then the first act and then.... some stuff in the middle that kinda went all over the place.... and then the big finale in the final act with the riots.

The script was, I think, a little overly ambitious, and I also found the film to be just a little to deadly earnest. I mean, yes, it was a serious subject (gangs and slums and war), but it seemed to take itself just a little too seriously (not unlike young Amsterdam, in fact).

The biggest problem is that the book on which the script is based is not really a story. It's non-fiction and it's much more about fact-telling, historian style (although the historical accuracy of the book is highly questionable; that's another discussion, though), rather than about storytelling, Hollywood style. I've read the book, and it's a pretty entertaining read, so I can see why they wanted to adapt it, but it can be hard to adapt a book like that.

[–] kkuger 12 years ago

"so I can see why they wanted to adapt it, but it can be hard to adapt a book like that."

The book also covers alot longer time frame, roughly 1830-1928. The first time I read the book, I said "Hey, somebody could make several really good movies out of this", which is what they should have done. The Draft Riots alone deserve a good three hour movie.

[–] beril_kin 11 years ago

I don't agree with you. I think the main reason for that is showing how brutal and devastating a war is, not just showing a revenge story

[–] Channel_1393 10 years ago

The performances in the film outweigh the plot.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=14spme0&s=8#.U_XRd2K9KK0