fedor8 Losing a whole 7 inches of height after you betray someone might be written in small letters in the typical Faustian contract. Just guessing. But the staggering height difference between Bettany (who plays the young McDowell) and McDowell really is the least of this film's problems.It is no mere coincidence this pitiful gangster drama came out right in the thick of the Tarantino and Ritchie hype. McGuigan, a shoddy wannabe who later filmed trash such as "Lucky Number Slevin" and "Victor Frankenstein" (who the hell casts that nepotistic nerd from Harry Potter in a lead role?!), must have thought that he too has what it takes to make a thrilling, entertaining, slick, modern gangster flick. He didn't, and he doesn't. Not even close. Already during the casting process McGuigan had shot himself in the foot over and over, condemning the movie to failure. I don't mean Malcolm McDowell. He is just a ruse to get us ("A Clockwork Orange" and "O Lucky Man" fans) to watch this crap. Sure enough, the film starts off with McDowell parading around smugly as a Cockney gangster, but that lasts only a few minutes. He is swiftly REPLACED for the next hour by Paul Bettany as the story shifts to swinging 60s London. I mean, BETTANY! As a "hip" Tarantino-like 60s gangster. You read that right. Bettany snarls and contorts his face the best he can (which isn't saying much), trying desperately to be a convincing thug, but it's like watching a 5 year-old impersonate Superman, or like watching a hamster do a Sid Vicious impression. Thewlis as a suave, charming, elegant crime boss who woos the beautiful Saffron Burrows? No spelling errors here, you read that right. These two are central characters and both were utterly miscast by hiring two soft-ass acting-school Englishmen who look about as threatening as a pair of garden gnomes. McGuigan should have taken lessons from (the old) Scorsese and (90s) Ritchie how to cast gangster films. He should have shown up on Scorsese's doorstep and begged him for a course in 101 Mob Casting. Actually, even the average movie-goer could cast a gangster film better. It's just common sense, something McGuigan severely lacks.However, the worst piece of casting – even worse than Bettany – is the chubby nerd that McGuigan cast as gang-boss Lenny. Nor for a second did I have the feeling I was watching a vicious 60s Cockney gangster. The scene in the bar sort of sealed it for me; at that point I realized that this movie will be just a serious of screw-ups. Lenny's behaviour is something like a cross between the Joker and Jim Carrey: utterly laughable, but not in a ha-ha way. Things get much worse when this idiotically conceived character gets tortured by Bettany, a segment that features the full range of the writer-director's incompetence: stupid camera angles, totally unrealistic torture scenes (with Lenny waving around with an arm long after he should have been stone-cold dead – cut up in at least 100 places), and Lenny TAUNTING his tormentor just before he gets killed! Well, THAT has to be seen to be believed. No sense in me trying to describe the utter inanity of it. As if it weren't bad enough that Bettany simply doesn't have the look of a sadistic gangster – or that he's a mediocre uncharismatic actor at best - his character doesn't make much sense either. His reactions to his boss Thewlis flirting with Burrows are baffling: is he AMAZED that his boss tries to pick a up a "bird"? What exactly annoyed him so much about Saffron or about Thewlis's womanizing is beyond me. It can hardly be a startling revelation for a goon to see his boss mingle with women.The final segment with Thewlis and McDowell is too stupid for words. Overacting, stupid dialog, and McDowell bafflingly almost begging/taunting Thewlis to kill him – even offering him a gun! Absurd and illogical on every conceivable level. Where did McGuigan study human behaviour? On planet Zong? He even has McDowell jumping off a building, which is about as gangstery as the utterly ludicrous Romeo-and-Juliet fairy-tale between crime boss Thewlis and Saffron. Truly, this script was written by a moron – for morons – and I've already mentioned the moron's name often enough for you to know never to watch anything this moron directs or writes.Thewlis comes out of prison after a whopping 32 years. Instead of giving us a REALISTIC revenge ending, the pretentious, utterly clueless McGuigan resorts to a POETIC ending, with McDowell handing Thewlis a gun, asking him to kill him. (A scene that is stupid beyond belief.) McGuigan fails to understand that gangsters cannot and should not be romanticized, and even if they are, give them a modicum of "respect" and portray them as they really are: as simple-minded narcissistic bullies with a penchant for extreme violence. Dividing up the central characters into "good" and "evil" displays an amazing lack of common sense. Wanting us to believe that McDowell sees no purpose in living – just because his former boss Thewlis is out of jail and about to get married with a woman McDowell never had any romantic connection to anyway – does not constitute "psychological drama". It constitutes blatant stupidity; far-fetched, wholly unrealistic characterization which only a clueless, wimpy upper-class film student could come up with.McDowell, who seems to be a fairly intelligent (and very funny) guy, especially for an actor (they tend to be extremely stupid), likes mentioning this film as one of the few he's proud of having done in recent decades. Then again, he also called Rob Zombie a "genius", so we can pretty much ignore any value judgments from him. When Rob Zombie is a genius, then all standards and criteria crumble like a deck of cards.

Spikeopath Gangster No. 1 is directed by Paul McGuigan and written by Johnny Ferguson, Louis Mellis and David Scinto. It stars David Thewlis, Paul Bettany, Malcolm McDowell, Saffron Burrows, Kenneth Cranham, Jamie Foreman and Eddie Marsan. Music is by John Dankworth and cinematography by Peter Sova. Gangster 55 (McDowell/Bettany as the younger version) looks back on his brutal life, on how he became a gangster... The British gangster genre of film was gathering apace in 2000. Guy Ritchie's Snatch would wow critics later in the year, while Ben Kingsley's ferocious turn in Sexy Beast (David Scinto and Louis Mellis co-write on that as well) would even get an Oscar nomination, yet Gangster No. 1 is the equal of both films but still doesn't have the acclaim afforded the others - undeservedly so. Predominantly set in the late 60s, with period flavours strong, pic doesn't pull its punches, and yet it is never over gratuitous with the violence and mania (but you do feel it big time) that surrounds Gangster 55 (Bettany brilliantly feral and frightening). It's with the characterisations where McGuigan's film gets its strength, we witness greed, blood lust and the yearning of power via chilling portrayals, set to the back drop of a scuzzy London underworld where even the vermin don't dare to dwell. This is a film not wanting to be loved thematically, but the top performances across the board and pic's ability to grab you by the throat - to not let go - makes it a rip- snorting slice of evil. Essential for those interested in the British gangster film revival of the noughties. 8/10

stuart-mcalister The Brits have always had the knack of making superb gangster films the along comes Gangster No 1 and destroys the fact. Whilst the majority of gangland stories have their fair share of colourful language and violence, this film went far beyond the boundaries of exceptable good taste. The entire film is splattered with both obscenities and blood but the script has to have been written by an illiterate with a limited vocabulary. Maybe that's what the film-makers wanted, who knows. There's nothing special within this film and as for hidden meanings, only those who think too hard might find 'a little something' that isn't there.

johnnyboyz Following 'Pulp Fiction' and the so called British equivalent: 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels', a rather sudden influx of gangster films has befallen our cinema screens in the past decade. Whilst I am not against this, as crime is a particularly favourite genre of mine; 'Gangster No. 1' is one of those rare occurrences where the typical criminal gangster film doesn't really hold up.One thing straight away is the title of the film. It's not particularly subtle, is it? In fact, the plot its self could be summed up by just saying the title of the film. A guy wants to go from 'Z' all the way up to 'A'. So the hierarchy element is very much present. Ever wonder why 'Scarface' didn't use the same title? Because it could've done.This film is very deliberate. It's not afraid of going over the top for the sake of it and it's not afraid of clichés. Given the fact that this was only the directors second ever feature film, it seems he's used these clichés as a kind of insurance so as to not get anything wrong too early on in his career. Some evidence here is made very blatant during the opening sequence of suited gangsters, puffing away on cigars to roughly voiced voice-overs as everyone swears like it's as necessary as breathing is. Another thing is our hero during the 1960's. Paul Bettany does a good job as the ruthless, psychotic gangster that he is but he steals the show a little too much from everyone else. The leader of the gang, normally a real hard-arse, mastermind, ruthless S.O.B is nothing more than another guy in a suit. He looks like he's just some business man out to attend another board meeting for his company that makes office equipment. This isn't good and it's rather laughable at times. So he swears a few times and dishes out a few threats. So what? Everyone does this in the NON-criminal world.Most of the other characters seemed a little eccentric and just out to start an absolute riot whenever they could; shouting as loud as they can just to get a simple message across. There are no cool, calm, collected criminals/gangsters that have been so effective on screen in past years. Think of Mr. Blonde in 'Reservoir Dogs' or Peter Stormare's character in 'Fargo'.There also doesn't seem to be much structure to the actual plot. This may be down to the director but the screen writer, it seems, had this film as HIS first proper outing. No wonder pathetic excuses to advance the plot crop up. The way Bettany got into the mob in the first place, the way that '6 months later'(!?) two characters randomly see one of their own leaving a rival club and then go on to discover a planned hit on their boss. What was a random drive in the middle of the day has suddenly turned into a major plot point/discovery and it was '6 months later' than the events we've just seen! It's pretty poor story telling. No wonder he hasn't had much work listed since 2000.What I also didn't like is the fact that whilst one character gets jailed for the murder of another when he didn't do it, a few scenes later we see the REAL murderer kill again – in the exact same way he did before. Aren't authorities going to be suspicious that this guy's already in jail yet another murder has happened in the exact same way? It couldn't have been him, obviously, since he's in jail. Again, sloppy writing and a plot hole opens up.Then, the years, literally, fly by. This was very bad. I can't work out if the montage that followed was supposed to be funny, dramatic, powerful or whatever! Maybe they did it in such haste that they wanted to avoid opening up another plot hole. Pretty weak, if you ask me.Although 'Gangster No. 1' has some good bits now and again, it has no real 'core'. The violence is entertaining and disturbing enough and the dialogue is rather snappy. During some scenes, Bettany's decent into madness and envy is rather good and the colour and camera work is rather impressive, especially as he's making his way through lifts and down corridors; narrating everything he's doing. This was truly gripping. The torture scene that followed was brutal as it was slick.However, with things like this few and far between and a really weak sense of the scriptwriter knowing what's going on; this was nothing better than just average.