Gangs of new york movie?!
Question: Gangs of new york movie!?
who is the directer biased towards in the film the natives of the irish!?!?!?
why!?
please/thanksWww@Enter-QA@Com
why!?
please/thanksWww@Enter-QA@Com
Answers:
its been a while since i've seen it but from what i remember the movie doesn't really favour one side!.!.!.he showed the corruption of both gangs as well as what they're struggles were!.!.!.while it starts in and focuses on an irish character we don't get the sense that his loyalties lie with either side!.!.!.it's a bit complex when you view the movie through leo's (i forget the character's name) eyes!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
One of Scorsese's controversial choices is seen in the film's closing shot: a view of modern-day New York City, complete with the World Trade Center Towers, despite their having been leveled by the September 11, 2001 attacks only a year before the film's release!. Scorsese chose to end the shot there because he "wanted to make a film about the ones who built New York, not the ones who tried to destroy it!."
Many critics have opined that the film is flawed compared to other Scorsese films, though it has its share of vocal supporters!. Roger Ebert, one of Scorsese's longtime supporters, gave the film a positive review, saying it was "a triumph, [but not] in the first rank of his masterpieces!." The weaknesses frequently cited are its comparatively slow pacing (the film has a running time of over 160 minutes) and perceived lack of character depth!.[citation needed] It has also been criticized for its wide-ranging thematic content; William Goldman, in a Variety guest editorial, claimed that the film attempted to touch on so many different themes that it failed to adequately explore any of them, though this argument was strongly rebutted by producer Irwin Winkler among others!. On the other hand, many critics praised the film, including eminent New York Times reviewer A!.O!. Scott, who gave it a glowing review!.
The film was shelved for over a year, and rumors have abounded of disputes between the producer Harvey Weinstein and the director, resulting in Scorsese being required to make damaging cuts!. As a result, some fans have requested a director's cut in the belief that such a cut would clear up the film considerably!. However, Scorsese has stated that the theatrical version is his final cut and has spurned the practice of releasing directors' cuts several times!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
Many critics have opined that the film is flawed compared to other Scorsese films, though it has its share of vocal supporters!. Roger Ebert, one of Scorsese's longtime supporters, gave the film a positive review, saying it was "a triumph, [but not] in the first rank of his masterpieces!." The weaknesses frequently cited are its comparatively slow pacing (the film has a running time of over 160 minutes) and perceived lack of character depth!.[citation needed] It has also been criticized for its wide-ranging thematic content; William Goldman, in a Variety guest editorial, claimed that the film attempted to touch on so many different themes that it failed to adequately explore any of them, though this argument was strongly rebutted by producer Irwin Winkler among others!. On the other hand, many critics praised the film, including eminent New York Times reviewer A!.O!. Scott, who gave it a glowing review!.
The film was shelved for over a year, and rumors have abounded of disputes between the producer Harvey Weinstein and the director, resulting in Scorsese being required to make damaging cuts!. As a result, some fans have requested a director's cut in the belief that such a cut would clear up the film considerably!. However, Scorsese has stated that the theatrical version is his final cut and has spurned the practice of releasing directors' cuts several times!.Www@Enter-QA@Com
Scorcese biased!? Nah!.!.!.Www@Enter-QA@Com