Absolutely Brilliant!

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Blistering performances.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

It's been a while since I saw 'Brighton rock' from 1947, but it was a lot better than this attempt to recreate a book for the screen. The acting may be strong in itself, but the drama and crime aspects never come together. One example is the scene where Pinkie takes Spicer on his last ride (or at least it is supposed to be) to the beach under the pier: the beautiful images of Brighton, its streets and dozens of mopeds (I'm not sure they're called that) are promising, but it hardly works, especially when Pinkie finds a little time to kneel down and pray(!) on the run from a couple of serious hard men. The ending has that same problem, it's over the top in its gestures, but there is no dramatic impact to match it.The locations, settings and costumes are pretty great, and the cast try their best, but it is all to very little avail.4 out of 10.

Having read the classic Graham Greene novel, and having seen the original film, and loving both, I had high hopes for this remake. However compared to the book and original this is awful in my opinion. I t is not true to the original story at all, yes character names and the basics of the plot are similar, but besides that... Of course to people who haven't read the book or know the plot, this may be enjoyable to you, but it probably won't. To many plot holes and unrealistic developments, which isn't surprising as they completely ignore a huge part of the novel. They do this so they can add their own twist on the story, but it doesn't work nearly half as well as the original. To conclude, if your a fan of the book, stay away.

The main character of this movie is Pinkie Brown, a small-time thug in Brighton, England, in the 1960s. Pinkie's true evil nature comes out when he tries to take over a small gang of criminals after their leader had been killed by a rival gang. As played here, Pinkie is in his 20s and, as brash and amoral as he is, he and his mediocre cohorts are no match for the rival gang that basically runs underground crime in Brighton. The action is sordid and ugly, but the glossy color photography works at cross purposes to conveying that mood. Much of the photography is more appropriate for an art film than for this down-and-dirty fare, making me think that maybe black and white would have been a more appropriate choice. As Pinkie, I found Sam Riley just a little too handsome for the part--he does not exude the menace and harsh personality that is Pinkie's nature.I found the initial setup scenes rapid-paced and confusing, requiring close attention; if you don't follow what has happened early on, you will be at a loss to fully understand what happens later. An additional complication to my following the opening scenes was the fact that I am not a Brit and didn't always follow the cadences and clipped manner of speaking. I confess to starting the movie over after about fifteen minutes, with English subtitles turned on. That was a great help.The score that often seems to aspire to the transcendent seems greatly out of place.I wish I had seen this movie before having read the book, since having some of the images in mind would have been good. Never having been to Brighton, my mental picture of it would have been greatly enhanced by what is well captured here. While the movie strips from the book much of the depth of the themes of sexuality, morality, loyalty, and sin, there are things in the movie that I found improved upon the book. I liked Helen Mirren's portrayal of Ida as a more centered person than the blithe Ida of the book, and John Hurt fleshed out Ida's friend Phil better than what I got from the book. And there are a lot of little things. For example, I pictured the candy, Brighton rock, as being something like a candy cane rather than the weighty rod seen in the movie. I regret that Pinkie's lawyer Prewitt was deleted--he was a truly Dickensian character in the book. And why the great ending in the book was changed is beyond me.

I am so pleased I did not go to see this film. I would much rather have watched the original black and white version again and would recommend anybody else to do the same. Every part in this new version was acted better in the original. Hermione Gingold any day over Helen Mirren. The sound quality is very poor. Most people seemed to mumble their way through and clearly the director was not concerned in the least. The only bright spot of the film was the performance of Phil Davis' as Spicer. Though to anyone with knowledge of the book and the original film version the parts of Dallow and Spicer have clearly been switched. It is an intentional and convoluted switch for "politically correct" reasons which leaves the character of Dallow (played by Nonzo Anosie), central to the book and the original film, still in place for the final sequence despite Anozie's inability to carry the significant part of Dallow; hence the switch and Davis' part of Spicer being enhanced to cover it. Sam Riley tried his best, no doubt, as Pinky but frankly he wasn't a patch on Richard Attenborough's performance.