The story might be rather ordinary and it may become less interesting after the first hour or so, but this is generally intriguing stuff. The film is effectively narrated and performed by Malcolm McDowell, but Paul Bettany is the one who really shines here, replicating McDowell's charisma as an uncaring and violent youth, whilst also injecting some of his own spirit into his character. The film is rather clever in fact with how it uses McDowell and what he has come to stand for, with a number of interesting echoes of A Clockwork Orange throughout the film. The biggest problem that I found in the whole production was that the flashbacks to the 1960s looked just like the present with no feel for the era. But really, other than that and a story that is not out of the ordinary, this is a well made film with an interesting visual and audio style, and quality acting to top it all off.
145 Reviews
A Great Movie of Gangsters
claudio_carvalho12 August 2003
The story begins in 1999, with an old gangster performed by Malcolm McDowell being advised that Freddie Mays (David Thewlis) would leave jail after thirty years in prison. His mood changes and he recalls 1968, when he was a young punk (performed by Paul Bettany), and he joined Freddie Mays' gang, his envy of his mob boss and his betrayal. The whole story of these two characters is presented slowly, alternating violent and luxury places and action. I liked this movie a lot. I would dare to say that it mixes 'Goodfellas', 'Casino', 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Reservoir Dogs'. Paul Bettany has a great performance as a psycho-killer: differently of those sadists in Hollywood movies that make grimaces, the simple look and expression of Paul Bettany is enough to terrify the viewer. The direction is great, and there is one specific scene that I appreciated very much. When Freddie Mays invites Paul Bettany's character to have a drink in a nightclub: Freddie is giving his overcoat to the attendant and the image of Paul Bettany is reflected in the glass of the door exactly over Freddie. The selection of Paul Bettany for this role is perfect, but why not ages him through make-up? Malcolm McDowell looks totally different from Paul Bettany! My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Os Gangsters" ("The Gangsters")
Title (Brazil): "Os Gangsters" ("The Gangsters")
It's Who You Kill
beermonsteruk9 October 2020
Ah Gangster No.1, the memories, where did the time go, saw this underrated gem at the pictures back when it came out as a young 16 year old with friends I've long since lost touch with, great times, anyway enough of the nostalgia trip, what was the film itself like? After a recent rewatch and trip down memory lane, it was just as good as I'd remembered, if not better.
Set mainly in London's swinging Sixties, alternating occasionally in the present day (2000), the story focuses on the unnamed gangster (brilliantly played by Paul Bettany, and Malcolm McDowell as the older gangster) and his rise through the criminal underworld, gangster, through the charismatic Freddie Mays, is taken into the firm and soon becomes Freddie's right hand man. Gangster immediately takes a shine to Mays and the obsession grows deeper and deeper, and is intensified when Mays grows close to the attractive Karen (Saffron Burrows) this further brings out Gangsters darkest side.
As things heat up, Gangster sees an opportunity to take over the firm as well as settle scores with Freddies rival, Gangster Lennie Taylor (played brilliantly by Jamie Foreman), the psychosis of Gangster becomes worse, and it's clear their isn't much he won't do to achieve his goal.
This was a good film, and does not get the recognition it deserves, Paul Bettany in particular does a fantastic job as the embittered psychotic Gangster, who as well as violent is also extremely creepy (see the silent scream scene, I still remember me and my mates reaction to that at the cinema), and performances from Malcolm McDowell, Jamie Foreman, David Thewlis and others are all to be applauded, and the director Paul Mcguigan done a fine job, maybe because of the time it came out, the same year as other gangster films such as Snatch, it got overlooked but if you want to see good performances and a good storyline, give this a watch, it's well worth it. 8/10
Set mainly in London's swinging Sixties, alternating occasionally in the present day (2000), the story focuses on the unnamed gangster (brilliantly played by Paul Bettany, and Malcolm McDowell as the older gangster) and his rise through the criminal underworld, gangster, through the charismatic Freddie Mays, is taken into the firm and soon becomes Freddie's right hand man. Gangster immediately takes a shine to Mays and the obsession grows deeper and deeper, and is intensified when Mays grows close to the attractive Karen (Saffron Burrows) this further brings out Gangsters darkest side.
As things heat up, Gangster sees an opportunity to take over the firm as well as settle scores with Freddies rival, Gangster Lennie Taylor (played brilliantly by Jamie Foreman), the psychosis of Gangster becomes worse, and it's clear their isn't much he won't do to achieve his goal.
This was a good film, and does not get the recognition it deserves, Paul Bettany in particular does a fantastic job as the embittered psychotic Gangster, who as well as violent is also extremely creepy (see the silent scream scene, I still remember me and my mates reaction to that at the cinema), and performances from Malcolm McDowell, Jamie Foreman, David Thewlis and others are all to be applauded, and the director Paul Mcguigan done a fine job, maybe because of the time it came out, the same year as other gangster films such as Snatch, it got overlooked but if you want to see good performances and a good storyline, give this a watch, it's well worth it. 8/10
Dark, Sharp, Shrewd: Magnificent.
unterpotaten2 April 2001
The first thing I notice is the cover-jacket. It is littered with the critic's gushing praise ; ` Diamond-edged performances' spews one filmic muso.
Hmmm...I'm immediately suspicious. Films The Truman Show and Existenz also garnered such critical acclaim yet, suspiciously and unfortunately, seemed to do absolutely nothing for me.
So how does Gangster No.1 fare?
Well, ladies and gents, believe the hype. If Gangster No 1 was a man, it would be diamond geezer.
Gangster No1 is a gem, albeit a very dark one. A brutal black comedy and an ultra-hip crime-flick in one - it's a cockney masterpiece, a genuine Pearly King of a movie.
The year is 1968 and our eponymous hero (we only ever know him as `Gangster') is taken under the wing of Freddie Mays, the quintessential East End gangleader. Though Freddie is young he has already earned himself a chilling moniker, the 'Butcher of Mayfair', and a great wad of cash. Gangster begins working for Freddie, collects debts here, breaks a few legs there, but soon has his eyes on the bigger prize - to be Gangster No.1. To be like Freddie. Soon Gangster is plotting his ascent, murdering fellow gang members and precipitating an internecine gang war on his way up the ladder.
So far, so unoriginal, I hear you say. But what distinguishes Gangster No.1 from its rather lame contemporaries (think Circus and 24 Hours in London) is its razor-sharp dialogue and superb performances. The scene where our gangster confronts a gang member suspected of being in cohoots with a rival is simply electrifying.
Paul Bettany manages to be menacing, piteous and ultra-cool all at once with a frighteningly realistic turn in the title role. David Thewlis too, as Freddie Mays, is faultless. Malcolm McDowell provides a suitably cockney-fied voice over, but later reappearing in person as an older version of our Gangster to provide the motivation behind the insightful denounement.
One slight criticism. The old `end of act-two problem' rears its ugly head at around an hour and fifteen minutes. Yes, the film becomes bogged down rather as Malcolm McDowell goes on a panicky cockney walkabout waiting for Freddie Mays to be released from prison. And when the two finally meet, in what was once Freddie May's luxury 60's pad, the scene isn't quite as explosive as you'd hoped it might be.
Nevertheless, Gangster No1 is an excellent film. A credible gangster flick, a stylish revisiting of the 60's East End, a cracking script, and spot-on dialogue.
Oh and the critics were right, the performances are ` diamond -edged'. Funny that.
Hmmm...I'm immediately suspicious. Films The Truman Show and Existenz also garnered such critical acclaim yet, suspiciously and unfortunately, seemed to do absolutely nothing for me.
So how does Gangster No.1 fare?
Well, ladies and gents, believe the hype. If Gangster No 1 was a man, it would be diamond geezer.
Gangster No1 is a gem, albeit a very dark one. A brutal black comedy and an ultra-hip crime-flick in one - it's a cockney masterpiece, a genuine Pearly King of a movie.
The year is 1968 and our eponymous hero (we only ever know him as `Gangster') is taken under the wing of Freddie Mays, the quintessential East End gangleader. Though Freddie is young he has already earned himself a chilling moniker, the 'Butcher of Mayfair', and a great wad of cash. Gangster begins working for Freddie, collects debts here, breaks a few legs there, but soon has his eyes on the bigger prize - to be Gangster No.1. To be like Freddie. Soon Gangster is plotting his ascent, murdering fellow gang members and precipitating an internecine gang war on his way up the ladder.
So far, so unoriginal, I hear you say. But what distinguishes Gangster No.1 from its rather lame contemporaries (think Circus and 24 Hours in London) is its razor-sharp dialogue and superb performances. The scene where our gangster confronts a gang member suspected of being in cohoots with a rival is simply electrifying.
Paul Bettany manages to be menacing, piteous and ultra-cool all at once with a frighteningly realistic turn in the title role. David Thewlis too, as Freddie Mays, is faultless. Malcolm McDowell provides a suitably cockney-fied voice over, but later reappearing in person as an older version of our Gangster to provide the motivation behind the insightful denounement.
One slight criticism. The old `end of act-two problem' rears its ugly head at around an hour and fifteen minutes. Yes, the film becomes bogged down rather as Malcolm McDowell goes on a panicky cockney walkabout waiting for Freddie Mays to be released from prison. And when the two finally meet, in what was once Freddie May's luxury 60's pad, the scene isn't quite as explosive as you'd hoped it might be.
Nevertheless, Gangster No1 is an excellent film. A credible gangster flick, a stylish revisiting of the 60's East End, a cracking script, and spot-on dialogue.
Oh and the critics were right, the performances are ` diamond -edged'. Funny that.
Living and Loathing in the London of the Swinging Sixties
nycritic18 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Thirty years after entering the cultural conscience with the his groundbreaking performance as Alex deLarge in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, Malcolm McDowell returns to the screen in this unabashedly violent and emotionally detached film about envy amongst gangsters and the need to be the "gangster no. 1". On learning that his old mentor, Freddie Mays (David Thewlis), has been released from jail, The Gangster (McDowell), now a kingpin among fellow gangsters, moves back to the late sixties when he was a young nameless man (Paul Bettany) just hanging around in the swinging sixties. He infiltrates himself into Mays' circle of gangsters, wins his trust, becomes a ferocious gangster... but there is something wrong with him from the get-go, something Mays is unable to see. The younger gangster has a serious personality imbalance that renders him covetous of everything surrounding Mays. Like Iago, he wants not only to be like Mays, but appropriate himself with Mays' life and this includes his then-girlfriend Karen (Saffron Burrows). Things reach a head when he hits on Karen who rejects him. The young gangster goes on a rampage, pitting Mays with a rival gang member, then brutally murdering Mays' rival and framing him for the murder which sends Mays to jail. He then emerges as the main gangster and lets loose on his up to then pent-up violence... that is, until the story reaches full circle and all three main characters are reunited. The Gangster realizes that Karen and Mays still love each other and his incomprehensible envy towards them has not caused a dent in their affections, and when Mays emerges as the more human person, McDowell sinks in his own self-hatred. An interesting film that takes its time to reach its audience, GANGSTER NO. 1 is a study not in violence but in self-loathing and what happens when the main character is a black hole. Both Bettany and McDowell, in remaining nameless, magnify this man's emptiness -- he, despite his position, is a nobody and has no future. Mays and Karen, on the other hand, having been swallowed alive by London's underbelly, become survivors who are above and beyond The Gangster's murderous rage. The director, Paul McGuigan, has a sharp eye for a stylized telling of such a violent story with flashy editing and some brutal points of view in depicting a murder sequence that resembles a rape and describes just how insane this gangster is. Not for the squeamish at times but a great film to view and enjoy.
"Paul Bettany shows his acting chops"
Matt_Layden1 September 2005
Gangster No.1 shows the rise and fall of a prominent English gangster. Malcolm McDowell is Gangster 55, telling the story in voice overs, and Paul Bettany shines as the Young Gangster giving a great performance, which carries the film from cookie cutter gangster film, to one of the best.
This film is filled with inspirations from many others, such as Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs, Get Shorty, etc. While some do work, such as "Look into my eyes", others don't, McGuigan, near the end of the film, fast forwards through decades in just a couple of minutes, we don't feel like we are with these people throughout their reign of terror in England. The film does have bits of originality, such as the "torture" while we see the FPV of the victim, fades in and out in his dying minutes, as the killer stands over his body, continuing the slaughter.
Paul Bettany shows how good he is in this film as he carries it to another level. His eyes in his "Look into my eyes" scenes are so hollow and terrifying that you know if he was interrogating you, that he could and probably would kill you at anytime. He has the look in his sharp suits and the style. It's a shame no awards went his way. McDowell, to me in this film is a little bit of, I don't know how to say it, but he didn't do all that much for me. The rest of the cast holds up well, blending well with the story line and environments they are put in.
The script is sharp and has a Goodfellas/Reservoir Dogs feel to it, the Goodfellas aspect shows the rise and fall, where as Reservoir Dogs, comes from it's dialouge. I've never heard the word c*nt used so many times. The film took it's time to showcase the rise of this young gangster from a common thug, to a crime lord. The one thing that did out me off though was the fact the he was just picked up out of a bar and given a spot. When Freddie goes to prison, that's when the young gangster takes his spot in being no. 1. Years go by and Freddie finally is released, while McDowell eagerly awaits his return, he expect some conflict, but what he get is a let down, I won't ruin what happens, but you'd expect something explosive.
So Gangster No. 1 showcases great performances from the actors involved and shows a great story that takes it time, instead of bang bang, you're dead. The film just lacks that one special thing to take it to greatness, above and beyond those other movies, but for now, it can just be the one to stand out.
This film is filled with inspirations from many others, such as Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs, Get Shorty, etc. While some do work, such as "Look into my eyes", others don't, McGuigan, near the end of the film, fast forwards through decades in just a couple of minutes, we don't feel like we are with these people throughout their reign of terror in England. The film does have bits of originality, such as the "torture" while we see the FPV of the victim, fades in and out in his dying minutes, as the killer stands over his body, continuing the slaughter.
Paul Bettany shows how good he is in this film as he carries it to another level. His eyes in his "Look into my eyes" scenes are so hollow and terrifying that you know if he was interrogating you, that he could and probably would kill you at anytime. He has the look in his sharp suits and the style. It's a shame no awards went his way. McDowell, to me in this film is a little bit of, I don't know how to say it, but he didn't do all that much for me. The rest of the cast holds up well, blending well with the story line and environments they are put in.
The script is sharp and has a Goodfellas/Reservoir Dogs feel to it, the Goodfellas aspect shows the rise and fall, where as Reservoir Dogs, comes from it's dialouge. I've never heard the word c*nt used so many times. The film took it's time to showcase the rise of this young gangster from a common thug, to a crime lord. The one thing that did out me off though was the fact the he was just picked up out of a bar and given a spot. When Freddie goes to prison, that's when the young gangster takes his spot in being no. 1. Years go by and Freddie finally is released, while McDowell eagerly awaits his return, he expect some conflict, but what he get is a let down, I won't ruin what happens, but you'd expect something explosive.
So Gangster No. 1 showcases great performances from the actors involved and shows a great story that takes it time, instead of bang bang, you're dead. The film just lacks that one special thing to take it to greatness, above and beyond those other movies, but for now, it can just be the one to stand out.
One of the best secret no one knows about movies of all time!!!!
cooknicole4 August 2008
I loved this movie soooo much! I was first introduced two thirds into it and I was immediately ready to sit down and watch it at three in the morning staying up till five am. The way it is shot is like pure genius! There is a scene in it that is shot from the perspective of the person being murdered and I mean it is aw inspiring! Seriously if it weren't for the way this movie ended it it would have been a 10 on my voting. Point in fact though the ending isn't horrible it just leaves a little to be desired. NON-SPOILER ALERT about the ending, they use a different person for the main character as the older version, but everyone else plays themselves just with makeup....(Don't get me wrong the guy they got 'Malcolm McDowell' to play as the older gangster is the best narrator and therefore carries the movie, but it's just weird and very hard to over look) Not to mention Paul Bettany who is a genius in this movie as well! My god the man can play psycho! All and all a must watch and a pass on to any friend who is in the mood to see a great flick!!!!!
Superman, King Kong, and Gangster No. 1
igm16 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie to see Paul Bettany once again. I enjoyed his performances in <A Beautiful Mind> and <A Knight's Tale>, and wanted to see him in something heavier. Gangster No 1 seemed like the ideal role to see how he'd fare.
He looks great decked out in Saville Row's finery, and has an unnerving composure which suits the role. The crude language seems more natural coming from him than from McDowell's older Gangster, or Thewlin's Mays. But the scenes in which he is supposed to be shooting daggers with his gaze at Karen, his rival for Mays' affection, seem comical and remind me of all the menace my five-year-old can muster in his stares.
There is much lifted from other films, but McGuigan chooses his source material well. The <Reservoir Dogs> inspired the bubbly soundtrack to Lenny Taylor's goring, while <American Psycho> inspired the methodical disrobing and laying out of goring implements in that scene. <Get Shorty>'s Travolta gets the "Look into my eyes" thing right: it's cool apathy we're supposed to see, not Bettany's hammed-up intensity. <Good Fellas> inspires the "Business was never better" sequence, though McGuigan's lacks any significant depth, catching up on three decades in three minutes.
Some original stuff too: While a gangster falls for the 'Bird' in this film, as in <Bugsy> or <Billy Bathgate>, it is not Mays' undoing, it is what saves him. The first person perspective on Taylor's goring works well, especially with fades in and out of consciousness. The jarring flash-forwards to Gangster's fierce attacks also work well. And I have never seen the c***-word used more liberally.
What McGuigan, Bettany and McDowell do especially well is to reveal the emptiness of Gangster's relentlessly evil lifestyle. His disloyalty, jealousy, cruelty, vanity, and his hunger for power leave him paranoid, unloved, and suicidal. His touchstones of power and invulnerability---Superman and King Kong---are not human, perhaps showing how dehumanizing such physical invulnerability can be. But he remains vulnerable emotionally, and relies on bullying an old mate in Mays' crew, Mays' girlfriend, and Mays himself to stoke his fragile ego.
A movie with some substance and style, but no virtuosos in this one.
6 of 10
He looks great decked out in Saville Row's finery, and has an unnerving composure which suits the role. The crude language seems more natural coming from him than from McDowell's older Gangster, or Thewlin's Mays. But the scenes in which he is supposed to be shooting daggers with his gaze at Karen, his rival for Mays' affection, seem comical and remind me of all the menace my five-year-old can muster in his stares.
There is much lifted from other films, but McGuigan chooses his source material well. The <Reservoir Dogs> inspired the bubbly soundtrack to Lenny Taylor's goring, while <American Psycho> inspired the methodical disrobing and laying out of goring implements in that scene. <Get Shorty>'s Travolta gets the "Look into my eyes" thing right: it's cool apathy we're supposed to see, not Bettany's hammed-up intensity. <Good Fellas> inspires the "Business was never better" sequence, though McGuigan's lacks any significant depth, catching up on three decades in three minutes.
Some original stuff too: While a gangster falls for the 'Bird' in this film, as in <Bugsy> or <Billy Bathgate>, it is not Mays' undoing, it is what saves him. The first person perspective on Taylor's goring works well, especially with fades in and out of consciousness. The jarring flash-forwards to Gangster's fierce attacks also work well. And I have never seen the c***-word used more liberally.
What McGuigan, Bettany and McDowell do especially well is to reveal the emptiness of Gangster's relentlessly evil lifestyle. His disloyalty, jealousy, cruelty, vanity, and his hunger for power leave him paranoid, unloved, and suicidal. His touchstones of power and invulnerability---Superman and King Kong---are not human, perhaps showing how dehumanizing such physical invulnerability can be. But he remains vulnerable emotionally, and relies on bullying an old mate in Mays' crew, Mays' girlfriend, and Mays himself to stoke his fragile ego.
A movie with some substance and style, but no virtuosos in this one.
6 of 10
Social avarice with a sublime black humour
lucidshard13 November 2004
Its easy to see why people think this film is over violent and trying to shock, but then thats because they just don't get the finer nuances.
This film is Excellent. The direction is amazing and Bettany, Thewlis and McDowell are all superb. The film runs from the point of view of the main character, Gangster, He shows how he got to the top of his game to be Gangster No1. All of the violence in the film makes a valid point some of it is horrific, none of it is unnecessary. The film also comments on the social avarice that penetrates our society, wealth, power and fame, I think the points it makes are truly justified.
Why do some people dislike this film? They are uncomfortable with people being portrayed as being comfortable with violence, and thats because the director wants you to be, and because the Actors are so good at it. The film freaked me out in two scenes and there was no violence just excellent direction and Acting.
Well worth watching, well worth buying on DVD.
This film is Excellent. The direction is amazing and Bettany, Thewlis and McDowell are all superb. The film runs from the point of view of the main character, Gangster, He shows how he got to the top of his game to be Gangster No1. All of the violence in the film makes a valid point some of it is horrific, none of it is unnecessary. The film also comments on the social avarice that penetrates our society, wealth, power and fame, I think the points it makes are truly justified.
Why do some people dislike this film? They are uncomfortable with people being portrayed as being comfortable with violence, and thats because the director wants you to be, and because the Actors are so good at it. The film freaked me out in two scenes and there was no violence just excellent direction and Acting.
Well worth watching, well worth buying on DVD.
Very good, under-rated and LIMEY-like.
alice liddell19 June 2000
Gangsters are vicious, murderous thugs, whose power is based on uniform, military might, a preying on the weak and a contempt for democracy. Nazis were vicious, murderous thugs whose power was based on uniform, military might, a preying on the weak and a contempt for democracy. Ergo, gangsters are fascists, and, double ergo, films which portray gangsters without a wagging finger are also fascist. This is the level of critical debate in the UK at the moment, that has greeted the recent slew of British gangster films in the wake of LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS. One misinformed hack in a major broadsheet even insinuated a link between this movement and recent, violent London crime.
The problem with these films is an aesthetic, not an ethical one, and the type of ignorant criticism they have drawn reveals a lingering bourgeois contempt for a genre that has proved over the decades to be infinitely varied, subtle, adaptable, but, most importantly, through an awesomely powerful iconography, capable of exploring ideas about society and the individual, modernisation, capitalism, dissent, cinema, masculinity, violence, the body, role-play, psychology, sociology, metaphysics. Can a genre embraced and remodelled by directors as diverse as Feuillade, Von Sternberg, Hawks, Lang, Lewis, Melville, Godard, Suzuki, Coppola, Scorcese, Kitano, among many others be considered negligible? The problem with these new films, as I say, is not that they are overly violent or glamorise crime, but that they are ineptly made, hackneyed, opportunistic, with their makers revealing little knowledge of, or love for, the genre in which they're working.
It's a pity for GANGSTER NO. 1 that it got caught up in this cycle, because it is a very good film, that maybe fails only in overambition, and that's not something we get to complain about very often. Ironically, the film's nearest model is not its sorry peers, or even archetypal classics like GET CARTER, but an American film, Soderbergh's THE LIMEY. Maybe these directors' non-Englishness (MacGuigan is Irish) allows them to cut through the phoney nostalgia more easily than native filmmakers, but their dismantling of gangster mythology is almost Melvillean (eg LE DOULOS).
There is the same fluidity here as in LIMEY, the same sense of the past's stranglehold on the present, the same impatience with genre's limits, with the impossibility of family, with the stifling of humanity by barbaric codes and ideals. MacGuigan goes one further than Soderbergh - both directors emphasis role-playing, casting iconic 60s stars who seem to be making it up as they go along, having a laugh, trying on accents and clothes, but while Terence Stamp achieves some kind of grace, Malcolm MacDowall goes very uncoolly mad.
There are three pointers in the first ten minutes that tell us where the film is going in its refusal to glamorise, to mythologise. First is the soundtrack, which is not the pumping macho nostalgic music beloved of the LOCK STOCK wannabes, but Sacha Distel - sung with heartbreaking sincerity by Neil Hannon, but Sacha Distel none the less. Secondly, the film opens at a business-like dinner of old gangsters blustering about the old times, MacDowell louder than most. If the flippant editing didn't tell us, the bathetic mocking of MacDowell when he leaves to relieve himself suggests that we shouldn't take everything he says too faithfully (or, in his straight-to-camera gesture, that he knows a lot more, eg about these 'friends', than he's letting on - is he a godlike creator?). In the third scene, champagne glass beside his feet, we notice his aim isn't quite what it was, and the title takes on rather a different, less iconic meaning.
It is this man who tells the story, and it quickly becomes clear that he is a raving lunatic, and thus as reliable as Humbert or M. This has two effects - every scene becomes infected by his madness, is heightened, in terms of colour and composition, by the way he sees the world, which is hightly unstable and schizophrenic, alternately jokey and horribly violent, with certain markers recurring in a kind of dream loop.
Secondly, we must look beyond his words to find the truth of each scene, forcing the viewer to play detective. This takes the power away from MacDowell, which is appropriate in a film about doubles, about hoow one man steals another man's identity (hence the foregrounding of mirrors, reflections, as well as the commodities that define people), only to lose his own.
MacDowell is never known by a name (his character is played by two actors, the others by one), and becomes a mere cipher, though with very real, frightening power, while Frankie remains essentially himself, his image a mere show of strength, never his whole self. The style reinforces this, and perhaps reflects MacGuigan's background in advertising, but neither Scott nor Parker ever rooted their style in character to such effect, and the fragmentation, heightening and distortion of imagery could have two meanings - they reveal a chaotic world which MacDowell, with all his will, and figured in his voiceover, has managed to unify through the power of his identity and voice; or they are a sign of breakdown. The extraordinary coda reveals which.
There have been complaints about the excessive violence of this film, but these scenes have a hallucinatory, ritualistic quality appropriate to a highly disciplined madman. GANGSTER's abstraction - that it's subject is gangster mythology rather than one particular protagonist per se, does not mean that it avoids social grounding - the vivid recreation of 60s London, only makes the unaccountable, inexplicable appearance of this phenomenon all the more alarming.
The problem with these films is an aesthetic, not an ethical one, and the type of ignorant criticism they have drawn reveals a lingering bourgeois contempt for a genre that has proved over the decades to be infinitely varied, subtle, adaptable, but, most importantly, through an awesomely powerful iconography, capable of exploring ideas about society and the individual, modernisation, capitalism, dissent, cinema, masculinity, violence, the body, role-play, psychology, sociology, metaphysics. Can a genre embraced and remodelled by directors as diverse as Feuillade, Von Sternberg, Hawks, Lang, Lewis, Melville, Godard, Suzuki, Coppola, Scorcese, Kitano, among many others be considered negligible? The problem with these new films, as I say, is not that they are overly violent or glamorise crime, but that they are ineptly made, hackneyed, opportunistic, with their makers revealing little knowledge of, or love for, the genre in which they're working.
It's a pity for GANGSTER NO. 1 that it got caught up in this cycle, because it is a very good film, that maybe fails only in overambition, and that's not something we get to complain about very often. Ironically, the film's nearest model is not its sorry peers, or even archetypal classics like GET CARTER, but an American film, Soderbergh's THE LIMEY. Maybe these directors' non-Englishness (MacGuigan is Irish) allows them to cut through the phoney nostalgia more easily than native filmmakers, but their dismantling of gangster mythology is almost Melvillean (eg LE DOULOS).
There is the same fluidity here as in LIMEY, the same sense of the past's stranglehold on the present, the same impatience with genre's limits, with the impossibility of family, with the stifling of humanity by barbaric codes and ideals. MacGuigan goes one further than Soderbergh - both directors emphasis role-playing, casting iconic 60s stars who seem to be making it up as they go along, having a laugh, trying on accents and clothes, but while Terence Stamp achieves some kind of grace, Malcolm MacDowall goes very uncoolly mad.
There are three pointers in the first ten minutes that tell us where the film is going in its refusal to glamorise, to mythologise. First is the soundtrack, which is not the pumping macho nostalgic music beloved of the LOCK STOCK wannabes, but Sacha Distel - sung with heartbreaking sincerity by Neil Hannon, but Sacha Distel none the less. Secondly, the film opens at a business-like dinner of old gangsters blustering about the old times, MacDowell louder than most. If the flippant editing didn't tell us, the bathetic mocking of MacDowell when he leaves to relieve himself suggests that we shouldn't take everything he says too faithfully (or, in his straight-to-camera gesture, that he knows a lot more, eg about these 'friends', than he's letting on - is he a godlike creator?). In the third scene, champagne glass beside his feet, we notice his aim isn't quite what it was, and the title takes on rather a different, less iconic meaning.
It is this man who tells the story, and it quickly becomes clear that he is a raving lunatic, and thus as reliable as Humbert or M. This has two effects - every scene becomes infected by his madness, is heightened, in terms of colour and composition, by the way he sees the world, which is hightly unstable and schizophrenic, alternately jokey and horribly violent, with certain markers recurring in a kind of dream loop.
Secondly, we must look beyond his words to find the truth of each scene, forcing the viewer to play detective. This takes the power away from MacDowell, which is appropriate in a film about doubles, about hoow one man steals another man's identity (hence the foregrounding of mirrors, reflections, as well as the commodities that define people), only to lose his own.
MacDowell is never known by a name (his character is played by two actors, the others by one), and becomes a mere cipher, though with very real, frightening power, while Frankie remains essentially himself, his image a mere show of strength, never his whole self. The style reinforces this, and perhaps reflects MacGuigan's background in advertising, but neither Scott nor Parker ever rooted their style in character to such effect, and the fragmentation, heightening and distortion of imagery could have two meanings - they reveal a chaotic world which MacDowell, with all his will, and figured in his voiceover, has managed to unify through the power of his identity and voice; or they are a sign of breakdown. The extraordinary coda reveals which.
There have been complaints about the excessive violence of this film, but these scenes have a hallucinatory, ritualistic quality appropriate to a highly disciplined madman. GANGSTER's abstraction - that it's subject is gangster mythology rather than one particular protagonist per se, does not mean that it avoids social grounding - the vivid recreation of 60s London, only makes the unaccountable, inexplicable appearance of this phenomenon all the more alarming.
They couldn't have slapped old-age make up on Bettany?
MBunge13 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a sleek and tasty morsel of English gangsterism that only slightly spoils itself with unearned aspirations at being a morality tale. When it takes us inside the black, clawing mind of a beautiful young thug, it's almost captivating. When it takes that thug well into middle age and tries to use him as an example of being careful what you wish for, it's heavy handed and bull headed.
The basic story is pretty simple. In 1968, a tow-headed tough (Paul Bettany) gets taken under the wing of a notorious English criminal named Freddie Mays (David Thewlis). The young gangster becomes part of Freddie's gang and enjoys the perks the English underworld of the late 60s had to offer. But while Freddie may be smart and tough and violent, his new recruit is something else all together. He's less a man and more a walking shark with a soul as dark and hard as a doll's eyes. The young gangster doesn't just want to be rich or powerful. He doesn't want to just take over Freddie's gang. He wants to become Freddie, to subsume him, to fill himself up with Freddie's worldly identity.
The young gangster gets his chance and lives the life of his dreams for 30 years. But then the no-longer-young gangster (Malcolm McDowell) is confronted by his past and by what he's made of himself and his life. He is Gangster No. 1, trapped in an existence where that's important and tormented by a view of a larger, better world where it isn't.
The stuff in this film with Paul Bettany is harsh and more than a little chilling. This is one of the better portraits of the blunt, selfish and somewhat stupid evil that makes up the gangster's character. These guys are not masterminds or super-villains. They are intense appetites, poor self-control and comprehensive self-absorption with no introspection. There's a sick fun to watching Bettany play a fledgling such creature, a little cancer that metastasizes through himself and those around him.
Gangster No. 1 also looks really good with a quick pace and a strong focus to its story. Director Paul McGuigan confronts the audience with the abnormal nature of Bettany's character. He doesn't allow the viewer to look at him through a lens of escapism. McGuigan never lets you get comfortable with imaging yourself as the young gangster, no matter how sharply dressed or coolly powerful he may be.
But whenever Bettany is replaced on screen by Malcolm McDowell, the whole production sputters. Firstly, you can get away with different actors playing a character at different ages, but not when you have other characters at different ages being played by the same actors. For example, when David Thewlis plays opposite Bettany's gangster and then has old-age makeup slapped on him to play opposite the same character now portrayed by McDowell, it looks inescapably silly. 60something Freddie Mays looks like 30something Freddie Mays with gray hair and wrinkles. Malcolm McDowell does not look like Paul Bettany in any but the most generalized sense. You could have had Morgan Freeman play the gangster in middle age and it would have only been slightly more distracting.
The other problem with Gangster No. 1 is that when the gangster gets old, the story become all about how his life of greed and violence and decadence and material obsession has turned hollow and worthless and left him angry and empty and frustrated. But virtually nothing that happens in the gangster's young life establishes or foreshadows or sets up that little morality play. This movie is like watching a softcore porno that arbitrarily turns into a Christian diatribe on abstinence. It's all forced and fake and kind of puzzling.
If you fancy violent tales about violent men, and don't mind if a capricious lecture on the downside of being a horrible person is injected into it, you'll relish watching this movie.
The basic story is pretty simple. In 1968, a tow-headed tough (Paul Bettany) gets taken under the wing of a notorious English criminal named Freddie Mays (David Thewlis). The young gangster becomes part of Freddie's gang and enjoys the perks the English underworld of the late 60s had to offer. But while Freddie may be smart and tough and violent, his new recruit is something else all together. He's less a man and more a walking shark with a soul as dark and hard as a doll's eyes. The young gangster doesn't just want to be rich or powerful. He doesn't want to just take over Freddie's gang. He wants to become Freddie, to subsume him, to fill himself up with Freddie's worldly identity.
The young gangster gets his chance and lives the life of his dreams for 30 years. But then the no-longer-young gangster (Malcolm McDowell) is confronted by his past and by what he's made of himself and his life. He is Gangster No. 1, trapped in an existence where that's important and tormented by a view of a larger, better world where it isn't.
The stuff in this film with Paul Bettany is harsh and more than a little chilling. This is one of the better portraits of the blunt, selfish and somewhat stupid evil that makes up the gangster's character. These guys are not masterminds or super-villains. They are intense appetites, poor self-control and comprehensive self-absorption with no introspection. There's a sick fun to watching Bettany play a fledgling such creature, a little cancer that metastasizes through himself and those around him.
Gangster No. 1 also looks really good with a quick pace and a strong focus to its story. Director Paul McGuigan confronts the audience with the abnormal nature of Bettany's character. He doesn't allow the viewer to look at him through a lens of escapism. McGuigan never lets you get comfortable with imaging yourself as the young gangster, no matter how sharply dressed or coolly powerful he may be.
But whenever Bettany is replaced on screen by Malcolm McDowell, the whole production sputters. Firstly, you can get away with different actors playing a character at different ages, but not when you have other characters at different ages being played by the same actors. For example, when David Thewlis plays opposite Bettany's gangster and then has old-age makeup slapped on him to play opposite the same character now portrayed by McDowell, it looks inescapably silly. 60something Freddie Mays looks like 30something Freddie Mays with gray hair and wrinkles. Malcolm McDowell does not look like Paul Bettany in any but the most generalized sense. You could have had Morgan Freeman play the gangster in middle age and it would have only been slightly more distracting.
The other problem with Gangster No. 1 is that when the gangster gets old, the story become all about how his life of greed and violence and decadence and material obsession has turned hollow and worthless and left him angry and empty and frustrated. But virtually nothing that happens in the gangster's young life establishes or foreshadows or sets up that little morality play. This movie is like watching a softcore porno that arbitrarily turns into a Christian diatribe on abstinence. It's all forced and fake and kind of puzzling.
If you fancy violent tales about violent men, and don't mind if a capricious lecture on the downside of being a horrible person is injected into it, you'll relish watching this movie.
Savagely brilliant British crime gem
NateWatchesCoolMovies10 August 2015
Paul Mcguigan's Gangster No. 1 is a vicious, savage London crime jaunt that's not for the faint of heart. It rests somewhere between the sassy, hyperactive world of Guy Ritchie, and the moody, paced films of Mike Hodges. It's combines a stylistically nasty, violent aesthetic with snappy, deliberately off kilter dialogue and deadly, serious performances that makes for a film that leaves a stark imprint in both our minds, and the British crime genre. Paul Bettany plays an icy, wickedly ambitious sociopath known only as 55, a fledgling hood who draws the attention of top tier London gangster Freddie Mays (David Thewlis), in the pool halls of east London. Mays takes him under his wing, and before you know it, 55 is his top lieutenant, utilizing his terrifyingly violent, morally blank skill set to advance Mays's criminal empire. He sets his cold gaze higher than that though, and eventually becomes a manipulating devil, moving the chess pieces on both sides to feed his sickening greed and hunger for power. When Mays becomes love struck by stunning lounge singer Karen (radiant Saffron Burrows), 55 sees this as weakness, and the perfect opportunity to strike. Bettany is a clammy, cloying, coiled viper in the role. He uses his silky voice and piercingly unsettling gaze to great effect as the ultimate psycho, and the guy you just don't want as either your friend or your enemy. Malcolm McDowell plays the older version of 55, and is sensational. He shows us a fermented, bitter side of the same coin we see with Bettany, all snarling unpleasantness and pure evil. The two performances alongside each other are just wonderful, and some of my favourite of the crime genre. Thewlis is dapper and slightly more likable, playing a guy who's weary of the game and is looking for any excuse to exit stage right. Burrows provides that intoxicating opportunity. Jamie Forman is loopy fun as an eccentric rival gangster to Mays and 55, and Eddie Marsan is great support as well. This is a British crime thriller with bite, brilliance, and a steadfast desire not to look away from the nastiness that happens behind closed doors and down dark alleys. It's this committed urge to show the violence,
What makes you think I'm Freddie Mays?
martinboychev22 January 2022
Worth living someone else's life? If 'love makes you fat', does the lack of it make you skinny? A movie of envy, greed and thirst for power. Well-presented view on a gangster's life, showing the balance between power, class, madness and sins. That balance, though, is not as balanced as one would think.
It is quite fascinating that the role played by Paul Bettany and Malcolm McDowell has no name in the whole movie. It just shows that obsession and jealousy leave you with no personality. Pretty impressive play from the then youngster Paul Bettany.
It is quite fascinating that the role played by Paul Bettany and Malcolm McDowell has no name in the whole movie. It just shows that obsession and jealousy leave you with no personality. Pretty impressive play from the then youngster Paul Bettany.
Horrendous
tkidcharlemagne5 October 2003
The even limited accolades this movie has received amazes me. What is almost a straight conversion from theatre to screen Gangster no.1 represents all that is bad about British movies. Lazy script, non existant characterisation, unnatural perfomances, horrific pacing. The small budget is not an excuse either for some woefully inadequate set pieces. Not only is the dialogue too theatrical, the locations appear altogether flimsey and contrived, the studio backdrops having about as much integrity as paper mache. Of course this is perfectly symbolic for the entire production. The plot for what it's worth is similar to that of Once upon a time in America but without any of the above. The laughable montage of Gangster's transition through the decades made me fume. Saffron Burrows what can I say, her acting abilities are non existant. I made the mistake of buying this dvd together with Narc and Get Carter (1971) last week. Next to those masterpieces this is a dismal effort. Poor.
McDowell redivivus
nunculus13 July 2002
What a mug! The evil-harlequin mask of Malcolm McDowell, so familiar from those bugeyed closeups of him "mounching lumpchiks of toast" in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, has aged into a fabulous ruin. And one of the pleasures of the glib, slick, cocky, brutal, shallow, and terrifically entertaining GANGSTER NO. 1 is in the realization that McDowell is the same McDowell--his voiceover has the same energetic sneer it had 31 years ago in CLOCKWORK. He's the same guy under a withered and weathered facade. As Gangster No. 1--a sociopath with a schoolgirl crush on his boss, spit-shined David Thewlis--McDowell brings you into the succulent pleasures of aged corruption and long-swallowed brutality. No. 1's nuttiness--a kind of belch of guilt, generally released in Francis Bacon-derivative silent screams--seems, for a while, like fun. Paul Bettany, playing Young No. 1, has a great, lizardlike, histrionic deadpan--he keeps telling his victims "Look into my eyes!" as if something scary and deep were hidden there. (Instead, there is zero--an effect Young No. 1 may be unaware of.) The movie takes such a jaunty and directorially piquant view of its own shin-kicking nihilism that you can't help but play along; until the moralizing but utterly earned finale sets you on your ear.
Not deep stuff--not even as deep as the superbly unself-reflective head-smackers who made up GOODFELLAS' crew. But Saffron Burrows, as a Cockney chanteuse who's mad in love with Thewlis' Mr. Big, brings you back to the days of much-posher-and-prettier-than-their-parts British character actresses. (Could Burrows in fact be the Susannah York of the millennium?) And the director, Paul McGuigan, and Bettany keep the joint jumpin'. Why did this get such a crummy release? There's been almost nothing this year as sheerly, undilutedly fun.
Not deep stuff--not even as deep as the superbly unself-reflective head-smackers who made up GOODFELLAS' crew. But Saffron Burrows, as a Cockney chanteuse who's mad in love with Thewlis' Mr. Big, brings you back to the days of much-posher-and-prettier-than-their-parts British character actresses. (Could Burrows in fact be the Susannah York of the millennium?) And the director, Paul McGuigan, and Bettany keep the joint jumpin'. Why did this get such a crummy release? There's been almost nothing this year as sheerly, undilutedly fun.
Somewhat Uneven Thriller
Theo Robertson18 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
What I remember most about GANGSTER NO 1 on its initial release was the critics mentioning the amount of violence shown ( Channel 4 also pointed out the "disturbing" content before the broadcast last night ) but I don`t really see what the problem is . I agree it`s a violent picture but at least the subject matter is treated very seriously with the deadly violence seen from the victim`s point of view for a change . The people who have a problem with this movie are the same people who have a problem with porn movies , honestly you`d think they`d never seen nine people in love before
!!!!! SPOILERS !!!!
If I have a problem with GANGSTER NO 1 it`s to do with the script , frankly it`s very dumb in places like Freddy Mays being convicted of the murder of Lenny Taylor . If Mays is lying in hospital in a critical condition why would he be a suspect ? The forensics would prove what time he died making it impossible for Mays to be a suspect . And the bare bones of the story seems to steal a massive amount from ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA though the screenplay does remain somewhat underdeveloped
As director Paul McGuigan can also be accussed of being heavily influenced by Scorsese but that can be forgiven as the direction is the best thing about the movie with nice little flourishes like the reflection of a man falling from a high rise block of flats in a car windscreen , and there`s the aforementioned scene of a torture victim . If I have a problem with any of the technical aspects it`s the sound mix with background noise drowning out the dialogue in some scenes , but there`s a good cast on show here with Paul Bettany especially good
But GANGSTER NO 1 is a fairly good - Though uneven - British thriller that owes very little if anything to Guy Ritchie . It`s such a pity the story wasn`t a little bit stronger and that the lily livered critics didn`t state the movie`s strong points
!!!!! SPOILERS !!!!
If I have a problem with GANGSTER NO 1 it`s to do with the script , frankly it`s very dumb in places like Freddy Mays being convicted of the murder of Lenny Taylor . If Mays is lying in hospital in a critical condition why would he be a suspect ? The forensics would prove what time he died making it impossible for Mays to be a suspect . And the bare bones of the story seems to steal a massive amount from ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA though the screenplay does remain somewhat underdeveloped
As director Paul McGuigan can also be accussed of being heavily influenced by Scorsese but that can be forgiven as the direction is the best thing about the movie with nice little flourishes like the reflection of a man falling from a high rise block of flats in a car windscreen , and there`s the aforementioned scene of a torture victim . If I have a problem with any of the technical aspects it`s the sound mix with background noise drowning out the dialogue in some scenes , but there`s a good cast on show here with Paul Bettany especially good
But GANGSTER NO 1 is a fairly good - Though uneven - British thriller that owes very little if anything to Guy Ritchie . It`s such a pity the story wasn`t a little bit stronger and that the lily livered critics didn`t state the movie`s strong points
3 stars (out of 4)
mweston15 October 2002
As the film opens we see a table of men in later middle age, very well dressed, around a table having dinner. In the same room, nearby, there is a boxing match going on, mostly ignored or perhaps taken for granted. The men remember shared events, but with fading memories. Their heavy accents tell us that we are in England. And we begin to see that these are people are criminals. Our main focus is on a character ("Gangster 55") played by Malcolm McDowell. When someone says that Freddie Mays is getting out of prison, Gangster 55 reacts and leaves the table.
We flash back to 1968. Now the Gangster 55 character is played by Paul Bettany (who played the roommate in "A Beautiful Mind"). We see him get recruited by Freddie Mays (David Thewlis), a.k.a., "the Butcher of Mayfair." Freddie is dressed impeccably, as we hear Gangster 55 describe in the voiceover. Soon, after he joins Mays' gang, Gangster 55 is also.
I was reminded of a couple of films. It reminded me of "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels," in that it involved gangsters with heavy English accents. This film also has some flashy camera work, but on the whole is more straightforward than the earlier film. This is appropriate, because while I would call "Lock" primarily a comedy, this was most definitely not. While there were a small number of humorous times, on the whole this is a serious and far more violent film.
The other obvious connection is to "A Clockwork Orange." The films are related because of Malcolm McDowell, who figures prominently in both films, by the way that the young Gangster 55 is photographed glaring into the camera in a very similar manner to McDowell's Alex in the earlier film, and by the general level of violence.
This isn't really my kind of film. I went because I read some very strong reviews. I admired it, but I felt drained when I left, and I couldn't really say that I enjoyed the experience. Even though that doesn't sound like a recommendation, it is, for the right people.
Seen on 8/2/2002.
We flash back to 1968. Now the Gangster 55 character is played by Paul Bettany (who played the roommate in "A Beautiful Mind"). We see him get recruited by Freddie Mays (David Thewlis), a.k.a., "the Butcher of Mayfair." Freddie is dressed impeccably, as we hear Gangster 55 describe in the voiceover. Soon, after he joins Mays' gang, Gangster 55 is also.
I was reminded of a couple of films. It reminded me of "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels," in that it involved gangsters with heavy English accents. This film also has some flashy camera work, but on the whole is more straightforward than the earlier film. This is appropriate, because while I would call "Lock" primarily a comedy, this was most definitely not. While there were a small number of humorous times, on the whole this is a serious and far more violent film.
The other obvious connection is to "A Clockwork Orange." The films are related because of Malcolm McDowell, who figures prominently in both films, by the way that the young Gangster 55 is photographed glaring into the camera in a very similar manner to McDowell's Alex in the earlier film, and by the general level of violence.
This isn't really my kind of film. I went because I read some very strong reviews. I admired it, but I felt drained when I left, and I couldn't really say that I enjoyed the experience. Even though that doesn't sound like a recommendation, it is, for the right people.
Seen on 8/2/2002.
A marvelously tough and stylish British mobster gem
Woodyanders19 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1968: A ruthless young mobster (a sublimely chilling and mesmerizing performance by Paul Bettany) desperately wants to emulate his mentor Freddie Mays (the excellent David Thewlis), a suave crime kingpin who lords over London. The gangster literally murders his way to the top, betraying Freddie in the process and losing his soul in his fierce quest for power. 30 years later, the older and successful, yet lonely Gangster 55 (an excellent portrayal by Malcom McDowell) awaits the release of Freddie from prison. Director Paul McGuigan, working from a bold and sharp script by Johnny Ferguson, handles the dark and gritty material with tremendous bravura style, relates the arresting story at a snappy pace, laces the whole thing with plenty of wickedly funny black humor, and punctuates the gritty narrative with several jolting outbursts of raw, savage violence. Kudos are also in order for the uniformly fine acting from a first-rate cast: Bettany is genuinely riveting and terrifying as the severely driven and psychotic main character, Thewlis likewise impresses as one smooth operator, McDowell makes the most out of one of his best more recent roles, the ravishing Saffron Burrows exudes pure class as Freddie's brassy singer moll Karen, plus there are nice supporting contributions by Kenneth Cranham as the wise Tommy, Jamie Foreman as hot-headed rival hoodlum Lennie Taylor, Eddie Marsan as sniveling toad Eddie Miller, Andrew Lincoln as vicious hit-man Maxie King, and Doug Allen as the brutish Mad John. This film boasts several memorable set pieces as well: our young gangster questioning a whimpering Eddie about Lennie Taylor, the ferocious murder of Lennie Taylor, and the older gangster's searing big climactic confrontation with Freddie. Peter Sova's dazzling cinematography, the flavorsome evocation of the groovy swinging 60's, the often amazing profane dialogue, John Dankworth's supremely jazzy'n'moody score, the stark, harsh tone, the fantastic golden oldies soundtrack, and a potent central message about the bitter spiritual coast of blind ambition all further add to the sterling quality of this bang-up corker of a crime thriller.
Entertaining Film
whpratt121 August 2008
This is a story about a young ambitious man who likes being a gangster and when he is young the role is played by Young Gangster, (Paul Bettany). Freddie Mays, (David Thewlis) is the head king pin and decides to hire this young gangster who wants to fill his shoes someday. There are many flashbacks concerning the life of the young gangster and the older gangster played by Malcolm McDowell who managed to send Freddie Mays to prison and he also took over his entire business. There is plenty of blood and gore and rough and tough British crude language which is very hard to understand. This is a very unusual film and it will hold your interest right to the very end.
An under-rated classic
peterdawson-1903529 June 2020
I didn't quite get this movie when it came out, but watching it again now it is totally brilliant. Bettany's insanity is as good as the best psychos and with half a dozen great performances from the rest of the cast, an authentic depiction of old London and some artistic trippiness, you won't be disappointed
almost all good
dartleyk3 June 2014
the main flaw is a part reviewers seem to love: McDowell as the aging gangster; he simply does not register as the future of Paul Bethany as the young gangster- in height, looks, voice, demeanor; everyone else is right there, good fit, which means that the movie works very well until you get to the aging part; then the crazy, electric, calculating, vicious gangster turns into pretty much an old fud who walks around smoking cigars and rambling on about his past, i.e. not very interesting; it's as if Capone became a financier; electric deniro as the young godfather became an aged fredo instead of Brando who is quite civil and well kept- and will have the horse decapitated no problem; but until you get there, the movie is a first-rate but graphically brutal crime drama with brilliant small performances by lizard-tongued Lenny and others; camera is good, sets are good, script is good, editing is tight, impending terror and doom abound; but better and tighter and no end of movie letdown due to shift of time and place- and way too much shift in character- is the krays; blistering; stunning Billie whitelaw as the twins mum; it's graphically brutal, too, if that's a stopper, but an 8 or a 9 in this ilk
Awful Gangsta Brit Flick
pieface7 June 2001
You can't take it with you
tnrcooper12 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Power is nice for a while. You can get all the women, all the cars, all the trappings of material success and respect that you might want in this world, but where does it leave you? That is the point of this well-scripted, fantastically acted, and excellently directed film.
The occasional psycho might see this as a roadmap to gaining power, but most will see the emptiness which consumes Gangster 55 (played by Malcolm McDowell) as an older man. I saw the emptiness most especially in the opening and closing scenes of the film. In the opening scene, 55 is in his sunset years is with his friends at a high-end club, re-living their younger days. They should be happy and relaxed but instead they seem manic and 55 seems downright bored.
The closing scene features McDowell again, mocking Freddie Mays (David Thewlis) who is humbled from serving 25 years in jail. Freddie is at peace. 55 has been the most powerful man around for quite some time and should take some pleasure in that. However he is miserable and so he baits this now humble man. It's clear 55 is that saddest of creatures - only happy when making someone else sad.
This film to me was about the emptiness of power gained at the barrel of a gun.
Some fantastic acting in this one. Paul Bettany was very good in A Beautiful Mind and he is cold, distant, and terrifying as 55 as a young man. His ambition seems limitless and Bettany makes us believe that there's almost no limit to his capacity for violence. Bettany's coldness and amorality are terrifying. Malcolm McDowell's old gangster is cruel, malevolent, and mean - McDowell seems to relish playing such a despicable character and he does it fantastically. David Thewlis as Freddie Mays really gets to show off his acting chops. What makes Paul Bettany's character admire him is how cool he is. He is cool even after he is released from prison, but along with that, Thewlis gives decency. Thewlis never does more when less will do and he gives a masterclass in understated acting. Saffron Burrows as Karen has a great role in which she plays a no-nonsense waitress with whom Freddie falls irreparably in love. That they remain in love throughout his time in prison is a powerful testament to the power of love and is the counterpoint to the bottomless hatred which emanates from 55.
This truly is a paean to the futility of power. Very bleak but also with a note of redemption in the story of the love of Karen and Freddie. I thought this film was interesting in that it offers a more bracing, detached perspective on the life of the gangster than films such as Goodfellas where the activities are so abhorrent. We see what violence and a hunger for power ultimately gets you - boredom and frustration.
The occasional psycho might see this as a roadmap to gaining power, but most will see the emptiness which consumes Gangster 55 (played by Malcolm McDowell) as an older man. I saw the emptiness most especially in the opening and closing scenes of the film. In the opening scene, 55 is in his sunset years is with his friends at a high-end club, re-living their younger days. They should be happy and relaxed but instead they seem manic and 55 seems downright bored.
The closing scene features McDowell again, mocking Freddie Mays (David Thewlis) who is humbled from serving 25 years in jail. Freddie is at peace. 55 has been the most powerful man around for quite some time and should take some pleasure in that. However he is miserable and so he baits this now humble man. It's clear 55 is that saddest of creatures - only happy when making someone else sad.
This film to me was about the emptiness of power gained at the barrel of a gun.
Some fantastic acting in this one. Paul Bettany was very good in A Beautiful Mind and he is cold, distant, and terrifying as 55 as a young man. His ambition seems limitless and Bettany makes us believe that there's almost no limit to his capacity for violence. Bettany's coldness and amorality are terrifying. Malcolm McDowell's old gangster is cruel, malevolent, and mean - McDowell seems to relish playing such a despicable character and he does it fantastically. David Thewlis as Freddie Mays really gets to show off his acting chops. What makes Paul Bettany's character admire him is how cool he is. He is cool even after he is released from prison, but along with that, Thewlis gives decency. Thewlis never does more when less will do and he gives a masterclass in understated acting. Saffron Burrows as Karen has a great role in which she plays a no-nonsense waitress with whom Freddie falls irreparably in love. That they remain in love throughout his time in prison is a powerful testament to the power of love and is the counterpoint to the bottomless hatred which emanates from 55.
This truly is a paean to the futility of power. Very bleak but also with a note of redemption in the story of the love of Karen and Freddie. I thought this film was interesting in that it offers a more bracing, detached perspective on the life of the gangster than films such as Goodfellas where the activities are so abhorrent. We see what violence and a hunger for power ultimately gets you - boredom and frustration.
Fundamentally great film just avoids being fatally sabotaged by casting anomalies
johnklem30 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I suspect there's a very interesting backstory to the making of Gangster No. 1. Consider the casting. The main body of the film is raised to almost mythical status by the pairing of David Thewlis and Paul Bettany. Neither has given a better performance and the chemistry is to die for. Think "Single White Female" relocated to 1960s London gangsters. The movie begins in the more or less present, then goes back to the 60s before ending back where we started. Everything in that 60s segment is perfect. It's not only the leads. Every character is on the money. It's rarely that everything comes together in this way but here it does. Ageing actors by thirty years within one movie offers a real challenge to the filmmaker but here the ageing is spot on, utterly credible. Which makes the substitution of Paul Bettany with Malcom McDowell for the present-day scenes incomprehensible. It simply doesn't work. But it gets worse. McDowell's a terrific actor but here it's as though nobody showed him Bettany's footage. He's playing a completely different character. Voice, accent, mannerisms, movement, walk. They're all different to Bettany's and it almost destroys the film. That it doesn't, that Gangster No. 1 is still one of the finest gangster films you'll see, is the tragedy here. Forget "one of the...". It could have been Oscar winningly, eat your heart out Francis great. And then there's the script. I have a copy of a play, by the same name and clearly from the same source but the writers' names appear nowhere in the movie credits. As I said at the beginning of this review, an interesting backstory. It's a shame that the film and we the audience paid the price.
Ouch ouch ouch
stee-917 September 2007
As I am generally quite easily pleased even by the most average of films, it takes a disaster of epic proportions to motivate me to comment on their faults at length. Here is an example.
Being a fan of British cinema in general, I have found myself entertained by the glut of British gangster movies released in the late Nineties/ early noughties so I have to admit I was looking forward to a fun 90 minute distraction when I came across Gangster No. 1
What we have here appears on the surface to be The Talented Mr Ripley meets The Krays, where by a cocky young crook stalks (for want of a better word) his classy mobster boss, destroys his relationship and generally tries to take over his life by using shall we say, less than ethical tactics. We flashback to London in the swinging sixties where we meet the unnamed Gangster 55, played in his youth by Bettany who displays rare but outstanding moments of cold detachment that stand above and beyond anything else in this film. Forward to 1999 and we meet the contemporary 55, who is now for some reason played by Malcolm McDowell giving a performance so poor and boring that his co stars seem visibly embarrassed. McGuigan over-directs to the point that he appears to be confusing himself, one scene portrays a brutal assault played out to lighthearted background music a la Resovoir Dogs displaying none of the panache and power of Tarantino's masterpiece. Even the novelty factor of seeing the scene from the victims POV appears tacked on when compared to the subsequent Cafe battering dished out in L4yer Cake which emulated it.
A criminally underused Saffron Burrows joins what appears to be an excellent supporting cast, but even the core blimey guvnor genius of Kenneth Cranham and Jamie Forman cannot inject any life into what has to be one of the most lacklustre scripts of recent years:
"You alright?" "Yeah." "Yeah?" "Yeah." "Yeah?"
Utter rubbish
Being a fan of British cinema in general, I have found myself entertained by the glut of British gangster movies released in the late Nineties/ early noughties so I have to admit I was looking forward to a fun 90 minute distraction when I came across Gangster No. 1
What we have here appears on the surface to be The Talented Mr Ripley meets The Krays, where by a cocky young crook stalks (for want of a better word) his classy mobster boss, destroys his relationship and generally tries to take over his life by using shall we say, less than ethical tactics. We flashback to London in the swinging sixties where we meet the unnamed Gangster 55, played in his youth by Bettany who displays rare but outstanding moments of cold detachment that stand above and beyond anything else in this film. Forward to 1999 and we meet the contemporary 55, who is now for some reason played by Malcolm McDowell giving a performance so poor and boring that his co stars seem visibly embarrassed. McGuigan over-directs to the point that he appears to be confusing himself, one scene portrays a brutal assault played out to lighthearted background music a la Resovoir Dogs displaying none of the panache and power of Tarantino's masterpiece. Even the novelty factor of seeing the scene from the victims POV appears tacked on when compared to the subsequent Cafe battering dished out in L4yer Cake which emulated it.
A criminally underused Saffron Burrows joins what appears to be an excellent supporting cast, but even the core blimey guvnor genius of Kenneth Cranham and Jamie Forman cannot inject any life into what has to be one of the most lacklustre scripts of recent years:
"You alright?" "Yeah." "Yeah?" "Yeah." "Yeah?"
Utter rubbish
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
