Gangs of London

Given a massive cast and considerably more time for building plot, Evans is able to extend that dynamic and see it through across multiple arcs without shortchanging any of them. ... Every fight scene here has clear movement, clear stakes, and a clear human element at play. ... It’s one of the best accomplishments of his career to date.

Gangs Of London is populated with compelling characters and stories, including the interconnected history of the Wallace and Dumani families.

At times it’s wildly serious and complicated, at times it’s unintentionally silly and simplistic. And all of the times, it’s addictive, gripping, unique, and jaw-dropping television.

Older viewers will be taken aback, but perhaps fascinated as well—the reaction to on-screen violence is, after all, often knee-jerk and disregards the fact that mayhem can be entertaining and/or cathartic and when done well, as it is here, is an art form unto itself. ... It takes its story very seriously, “Gangs” does, but it’s also audacious enough to engender good will and enigmatic enough to keep one engrossed.

“Gangs of London” is a bold continuation of the mafia movie tradition, yet like the inexperienced figures at its center, the show carves its own enthralling path.

Overall, Gangs of London promises to be a wild and wildly polished ride, even before the twist at the end of the 90-minute opener.

Director Gareth Evans has succeeded in melding the tropes of martial arts, video games and slasher films so that one feels detached from the brutality. The action is balletic more than it is horrific; the blows don't land as emotionally. ... The cast is excellent (so nice to see Catelyn Stark OK, Michelle Fairley as the gangster's wife) and I could watch Lucian Msamati in anything.

“Gangs of London,” has an uneasy path to walk but it’s mostly successful at navigating it. On the one hand, it’s an absorbing drama about a wealthy, viciously unethical family on the cusp of generational change. (Think “The Godfather” or “Succession.”) Now, combine that with enough lethal firepower and martial-arts mano a mano to give Jason Statham pause, and you’ve got “Gangs of London.”

Spectacular, cartoonish ultraviolence becomes less of a selling point as the series goes on. Its replacement — a parable of toxic masculinity about men making the most savage possible choice to avoid appearing “soft’ in front of other men — becomes tedious. But it’s worth waiting out Gangs’ less distinguished bits to get to those Evans setpieces.

Despite all our reservations, we’re recommending Gangs Of London because it feels like the story is going to be relatively straightforward, despite all the characters that will need to be addressed. At least that’s what we hope will happen.

The real question with Gangs of London is just how much loyalty should be engendered by one fabulously orchestrated bit of ultraviolence in each hour. Because outside of those big set pieces, it’s a competent but unremarkable crime drama with a pretty good cast.

The show does well to quickly build its own mythology, and there are interesting elements sprinkled throughout related to class, race and poor, Sixties immigrants raising well-educated sons. ... You just wish Gangs of London would settle on a consistent mood: either lean into the nonsense, or quit pretending you’re The Wire. As it stands, you probably wouldn’t want to join this particular gang.

After a promising first half hour, the writers basically give up any pretense of constructing a good narrative, and the show slips into sanguinary dreck. The really offensive part here isn’t the violence. It doesn’t take long to understand that rather than using it to illustrate a point about the nature of the world, as the truly great shows do, the creators just seem to get off on the ugly depictions.