"Gangster #1" is probably the most brutal movie I've ever seen.

[CanuckAmok]

It's a fairly straightforward Channel Four London Gangster/Wide Boy flick, but there's a scene of prolonged violence in it which simply makes my skin crawl with its brutality, and the fact that it's shot completely from the victim's point of view is the main reason why.

But, damn, Malcolm McDowall and David Thewlis can act, I tells ya!

[clovis29]

1. who made it?

[CanuckAmok]

2. A Channel Four Production, from 2000, directed by:

Paul MacGuigan.

From a production design point of view, it's incredible. The costumes and sets, and the 63 Aston Martin, are the very zeitgeist of the "Crule Brittania" element of Swinging London.

[clovis29]

3. OIC

[HEyHEY]

4. I liked it alot

[HEyHEY]

5. I was thinking about it today actually

I was looking up info on a guy named "Larry Tayloer" close to Lenny...SO I remembered the movie.

Plus it has an Englebert HUmperdink tune!@

[CanuckAmok]

6. I watched it today at work!

But I saw it in the theatre, and the then-Mrs. Amok nearly walked out.

But I'm a sucker for 60s Brit Firm pics. It's all about suits and boots, my son.

[HEyHEY]

7. damn right

[CanuckAmok]

8. plus...it's my heritage...

and I'm getting quite interested in researching the EastEnd and Essex firms of the 50s and 60s.

[McKenzie]

9. I have my doubts about the merit of the film

what troubles me is that it was stylised violence, almost violence as entertainment. It also added to the long list of films that seem to treat gangsterism as a form of "cool". The suits, the rituals, the lingo and so on are part of the iconography.

Films such as The Godfather are masterpieces of cinematography and story-telling; the film you refer to didn't have any real point to it. It was just violence as entertainment imho and that sucks.

Sorry if this reads like a dig at you - it's not.

regards