Rent Gangster No. 1 (2000)

Gripping - Gangster No. 1 review by Pete W

Lots of blood, gore and sharp suits. Held together by two good performances by David Thewlis and Paul Bettany as the violent, sexually ambivalent, disturbed and ultimately deranged Gangster of the title.

A terrifying Bettany & some great music/production values make up for significant structural issues - Gangster No. 1 review by TB

Gangster No 1 is such a mixed bag. Many people at the time would have heard of it in the media due to the unbelievably graphic & horrifically violent scene where a character is literally butchered by another one, from the attacked character's point of view. It was also a film which debuted at the same time that a flood of British gangster films were released, with huge success & acclaim (Guy Ritchie's output the most high profile of these,) so was compared at times unfavourably to them. It also had a very troubled production, with both of the writers & director walking off it due to disputes with the producers. And unfortunately at its worst, Gangster No 1 clearly shows the issues bringing it to screen. But it also has many incredible parts to it as well.

Front & center of this are the dual performances of Paul Bettany & Malcolm McDowell as "Gangster." Both of them are incredible, especially Bettany. McDowell has made a career from playing extremely disturbed & psychotic men, so this role was a natural fit for him. But this was Bettany's 1st leading role, and no doubt a daunting task to play the younger version of McDowell's character. But he absolutely nails it: Bettany literally becomes a psychopath in front of you, his piercing blue eyes boring into your brain and the constant threat of violence from his perfectly manicured hands, as comfortable holding a machete as a cigarette.

The production values are also superb. The clothing in this film, as well as the locations & sets, really do look like you have been transported back to the 1960's. Alongside that, the soundtrack is also full of punchy numbers, brilliantly marrying up with the mise-en-scene.

But in other ways, this film really is poor, to the extent that it starts to affect the good parts of it. Speaking of mise-en-scene, whilst the locations & costumes absolutely are spot on, the way the film is shot is at times atrocious. The colour palette makes it look like some of the film stock was out of date when it was used, particularly the outside scenes, which have this dreary washed-out & at times lifeless look.

The script feels chopped up & often scattershot, with pacing a real issue in some scenes as well. As much as this is a gangster film about a specific period of time in London, there is at points so much "Cockney geezer" performance & non-stop profanity that it verges on the wrong side of pastiche.

The much talked-about POV murder scene, which is so viscerally nasty & sociopathically cruel that it is almost unwatchable, is again something which I feel conflicted about: yes, it absolutely shows the depth of psychopathy that Gangster has, combined with a desperate want to be accepted by the man (Mays,) who dominates Gangster's every thought. But it also feels like it was put in more for shock value than anything else, a view which is reinforced the longer the scene goes on (and believe me, this sequence is not short.)

Having said all that, I cannot deny I enjoyed it. The performances absolutely make it (including an early Eddie Marsan role, playing a man so terrified of Bettany you feel it in your bones,) and there is a real delight in watching McDowell chew up the scenery for all he's worth. But with a bigger budget, Jonathan Glazer (the original director,) in the chair & no production issues, what this film could have been God only knows...