Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

dartleyk 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

jarod34 I thought Gran Torino was the worst film I'd ever seen based on awful acting, hilarious dialog and as a vehicle for a has been, but this film makes Gran Torino look like Ghandi. You know you are watching a bomb when you are laughing at a film that's not meant to be a comedy, as was the case with Gran Torino, but when you stop laughing and have the urge to cry, then you are watching Gangster No. 1. Malcolm McDowell has to be the worst actor that ever walked the earth. I would advise anyone who values a good script, a good screenplay, and most of all decent acting, to avoid this film like they would avoid a particularly noxious disease. I never thought I would see a film that makes Gran Torino look good, I've found it!

gangstahippie Rated R for strong brutal violence, pervasive language, and brief drug use and nudity. Quebec Rating:16+(should be 13+) Canadian Home Video Rating:18AI saw Gangster No 1 about a week ago on IFC.I must say, it exceeded my expectations.I knew it wasn't going to be any "Godfather".I expected to be an average gangster movie such as "Knockaround guys" or something.But Gangster No 1 exceeded my expectations and it is a fairly good gangster film with strong performances and a good storyline.The story is basically thirty years of the life of a gangster ranging from the year 1970 to the year 2000.It shows how he worked for another powerful mafia boss, how he betrayed the mafia boss,and his rise to being a rich gangster and later finding out that he is not happy with it.Gangster No 1 is a good gangster movie that is recommended.

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.