Gangster No. 1 Reviews

Page 1 of 3
April 29, 2009
Despite some really good performances especially from Bettany, this is a pretty terrible movie...
December 30, 2006
December 6, 2005
June 4, 2004
February 10, 2004
September 16, 2003
A stylish, confused and insanely violent gangster drama from a first-time Brit director.
August 1, 2003 shots do not a riveting film make.
April 5, 2003
. . .captures the kinetic quality of the 60s with jump-action pacing, groovy camera angles and the occasional split screen treatment that never crosses the line into camp.
December 8, 2002
It certainly feels unique, and sets itself apart from most American gangster films in its stark refusal to paint the lead gangster as likable or indeed anything other than the vicious socio-psychopath he is.
December 2, 2002
It's a handsomely ugly affair, well dressed enough to make a few friends, but tough enough to make just as many enemies.
October 21, 2002
McGuigan has assembled a stellar all-British cast in which there are no weak links.
October 3, 2002
Malcolm McDowell is cool. Paul Bettany is cool. Paul Bettany playing Malcolm McDowell? Cool.
September 27, 2002
Not as well-written as Sexy Beast, not as gloriously flippant as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, but stylish and moody and exceptionally well-acted.
September 18, 2002
September 13, 2002
If you can stomach the rough content, it's worth checking out for the performances alone.
September 13, 2002
Paul Bettany is good at being the ultra-violent gangster wannabe, but the movie is certainly not number 1.
September 12, 2002
Director Paul McGuigan and cast infuse the proceedings with a strong dose of psychotic gusto and visual flare.
September 6, 2002
A prolonged extrusion of psychopathic pulp.
August 26, 2002
Glizty but formulaic and silly...Cagney's 'top of the world' has been replaced by the bottom of the barrel.
August 23, 2002
A film divided into past and present sections that are ridiculously disparate.
Page 1 of 3