← Back to Reviews
in
#522 - Gangster No. 1
Paul McGuigan, 2000
An ageing London gangster reminisces about his rise to power in the late 1960s.
Genre pastiche is great when it's done right, but when it's not...results may vary. Gangster No. 1 definitely feels less like its own movie than a series of homages and references to many other crime movies, which is definitely a problem that was endemic to the genre following the release of Pulp Fiction. It starts off somewhat promisingly by introducing us to our nameless protagonist (Malcolm McDowell). McDowell, whose uniquely nasal delivery gave modern cinema one of its most iconic narrations in A Clockwork Orange, at least manages to bring a similar gravitas to this rather mediocre film as he snarls his way through the tale of his younger self (Paul Bettany) entering London's criminal underworld in 1968 under the tutelage of a renowned gangster (David Thewlis). What follows is a fairly standard gangster tale as the protagonist makes his rise to power that involves a lot of the usual tropes - twisted love triangle with the boss's girlfriend (Saffron Burrows), brewing turf war with a rival gangster (Jamie Foreman), increasingly brutal acts of violence that are for reasons both personal and business-related, etc.
The problem isn't just that Gangster No. 1 is derivative, it's that it's derivative in a fairly boring way. I generally don't mind picking up the similarities to earlier works, but I do mind if that's the only thing that defines the film. Goodfellas would be the most obvious influence upon this film with the bulk of the film being a narration-heavy '60s flashback; even more egregious are developments such as the boss-moll-soldier dynamic from Scarface, the inner monologue with a different voice from Mean Streets, and the entire third act suddenly turning the film into Once Upon a Time in America. This latter homage is especially distracting considering how every character is aged up by 30 years save for Bettany, who is replaced with McDowell instead. I guess the film-makers really wanted that voice-over. This doesn't automatically make the film completely bad, but it definitely feels too uninspired to be even remotely classic. It doesn't try anything particularly daring in terms of its execution and the story doesn't have a lot in the way of interesting twists. It's carried by some fairly decent actors even as they play some generally rote characters. Having the main character be a deliberately blank slate is quite the tightrope act and what few pieces of character development he receives only serve to leave him unbalanced. The occasional lapses into heavily stylised shots (especially in certain flash-forwards) do little to infuse the film with much energy. I remember when I first saw Gangster No. 1 on video store shelves many years ago and thought that it looked like quite the awesome movie. Now that I've finally gotten around to watching it, I'm sad to see that that's not the case.
Paul McGuigan, 2000
An ageing London gangster reminisces about his rise to power in the late 1960s.
Genre pastiche is great when it's done right, but when it's not...results may vary. Gangster No. 1 definitely feels less like its own movie than a series of homages and references to many other crime movies, which is definitely a problem that was endemic to the genre following the release of Pulp Fiction. It starts off somewhat promisingly by introducing us to our nameless protagonist (Malcolm McDowell). McDowell, whose uniquely nasal delivery gave modern cinema one of its most iconic narrations in A Clockwork Orange, at least manages to bring a similar gravitas to this rather mediocre film as he snarls his way through the tale of his younger self (Paul Bettany) entering London's criminal underworld in 1968 under the tutelage of a renowned gangster (David Thewlis). What follows is a fairly standard gangster tale as the protagonist makes his rise to power that involves a lot of the usual tropes - twisted love triangle with the boss's girlfriend (Saffron Burrows), brewing turf war with a rival gangster (Jamie Foreman), increasingly brutal acts of violence that are for reasons both personal and business-related, etc.
The problem isn't just that Gangster No. 1 is derivative, it's that it's derivative in a fairly boring way. I generally don't mind picking up the similarities to earlier works, but I do mind if that's the only thing that defines the film. Goodfellas would be the most obvious influence upon this film with the bulk of the film being a narration-heavy '60s flashback; even more egregious are developments such as the boss-moll-soldier dynamic from Scarface, the inner monologue with a different voice from Mean Streets, and the entire third act suddenly turning the film into Once Upon a Time in America. This latter homage is especially distracting considering how every character is aged up by 30 years save for Bettany, who is replaced with McDowell instead. I guess the film-makers really wanted that voice-over. This doesn't automatically make the film completely bad, but it definitely feels too uninspired to be even remotely classic. It doesn't try anything particularly daring in terms of its execution and the story doesn't have a lot in the way of interesting twists. It's carried by some fairly decent actors even as they play some generally rote characters. Having the main character be a deliberately blank slate is quite the tightrope act and what few pieces of character development he receives only serve to leave him unbalanced. The occasional lapses into heavily stylised shots (especially in certain flash-forwards) do little to infuse the film with much energy. I remember when I first saw Gangster No. 1 on video store shelves many years ago and thought that it looked like quite the awesome movie. Now that I've finally gotten around to watching it, I'm sad to see that that's not the case.