Brighton Rock (2010)

Good movie but grossly overrated

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I vaguely remember the book being dark, gruesome and unpleasant, and the film is all of that. And sad, and awful in parts too. But I rate it a 9 because the basic story is so gripping and the production, directing and acting are so good. Poor Pinkie looks so sad in all the scenes, maybe that was like life was like in post-war Britain for a youth with no real prospects? And Rose is so sweet and innocent. How does she get involved in such awfulness? Very good support cast too. Ida, Mr Corkery, Colleoni.I've read other reviews. I don't understand why comparisons are made with a previous version, nor of the book. I judge the film on what I see now, hence the rating. Just a little complaint in that I can't believe that a smallish seaside resort would support even one stand-over gang, let alone two. The DVD bonus features are a disappointment too. Boring. But Andrea Riseborough shows what can be done in make-up. In the film she looks about 10 years younger than in real life.

Evidently in order to simplify the plot, this version of BRIGHTON ROCK starts off on the wrong foot and never regains its balance. The start of the book (and of the 1947 movie) shows us the murder of an innocent man. An impecunious, promiscuous middle-aged woman with an innate sense of justice refuses to let the murder go unsolved. In this new movie, the murder victim is a violent thug and the middle-aged woman is a friend of his, so the pure and disinterested quest for justice is muddied up by the woman's personal motivation and the victim's own culpability. Moreover, she isn't wanting for money, so her quest for justice, while still dangerous, is less quixotic.There is also a problem with the young gang leader and his girlfriend. The book contains certain extremes of characterization that the movie might indeed be excused for avoiding, especially in the 21st century. The gang leader is supposed to be in his mid-teens, while his gang members are adults, and if that were on the screen before your eyes it would be harder to believe than in a book. Still, although both movies used actors out of their teens, this time the fellow scarcely looks boyish; he's balding deep at the temples. And his girlfriend in the movie makes less of an effort than in the book to turn her attention away from his evildoing. It's understandable that a movie in 2010 would not want her portrayed as hiding her head in the sand; but by reducing her naiveté, as in taking away the innocence of that murder victim at the beginning, the movie becomes more a tale about those other people, the criminals who are unlike you and me, and less a story where we can find people to identify with.

The story is filled with uninteresting one dimensional characters. So unpleasant and silly. It's just shouldn't have been remade. It's not even worth a watch for Helen Mirren.Andrea Riseborough plays Rose looks too intelligent to play the half wit character with the lowest self esteem in the world. The object of her affection played by Sam Riley speaks in an indecipherable squeaky accent that I couldn't understand half of what he said. Helen Mirren looks younger with her darker thicker hair. Why she wants to bother with that silly Rose is just beyond me.Don't bother with this ugly story full of idiotic characters.

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.