Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

mattsmiddy It's based on a classic book, so there's no problem with the story which plays the dynamics of the interrelation between a psychopath and their brain washed empath victim brilliantly, with great performances from both leads. The switch 30 years forward to the early 60's was seamless, deep down society was basically the same, the idea that youth crime was a new phenomenon is rubbish, 30's razor gangs were much scarier than the mods and rockers. However, one flaw is that Rose stays in a run down tower block, in the early 60's all tower blocks were brand spanking new, and would have looked great compared to the old slums. It took until the 80's for them to get run down, the middle classiness of the film makers coming through, not realizing that.

Nozz 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.

mateoducato The movie Brighton Rock is an adaptation from one of Graham Greene novels, which was directed by the British director Rowan Joffe. This movie has caused controversy around Britain, and around the world, as it is the second adaptation of this novel. In 1947, there was another adaptation, and many people say that it was much better, that the Joffe one was rubbish and totally disappointing. I haven't seen the older adaptation but I have seen this one and without comparing them, just judging this one as a movie it wasn't too good.Firstly, lets talk about the actors and their roles. The main characters; Pinkie interpreted by Sam Riley and Rose interpreted by Andrea Riseborough, were awful. Pinkie was too mean and too cold, he needed more charm, when Rose was too vulnerable, making it very unconvincing. This made it really difficult for the viewers to empathize with the character; I really didn't care what happened to them at the end of the movie. However, there were some good characters, as well; Helen Mirren (Ida) and John Hurt (Phil), acted incredibly well, they gave a touch of class when they appeared.Secondly, the beginning was very confusing and not very attractive. Beginnings are supposed to be catchy, but in this movie it wasn't. It required closed attention, lots of concentration because if not you will be totally lost during the whole movie. Then, the plot was too thin (trivial), each scene was totally predictable and didn't created mystery or suspense. Furthermore, the scenes of violence were too sordid and disgusting, instead of being realistic.Although, the movie, also, have some positive aspects. The cinematography was really good; the film creates an atmospheric mid 60's version of Brighton, which is showed as cold, bleak and gray, as really is Brighton in winter. Also, the music, by Martin Philipps, was brilliant. Each composition fitted perfectly in each scene. Then, the costumes were absolutely amazing, making the film's atmosphere even better. At the end of the movie you really think you saw a movie filmed in the mid 60's, in Brighton.In conclusion, the cinematography, the music, the costumes of the film were extraordinary and realistic, it transported the viewers to Brighton in the 60's. Although, the script, the plot, the scenes, the beginning and end, most of the actors, contributed to make this movie very boring and disappointing. I really didn't enjoy it at all; I just wanted the movie to finish.

jotix100 Graham Greene's novel gets another treatment by Rowan Joffe. This new remake glosses the story in ways that pales in comparison with the grittier early version. At the center of the novel was the religion issue that both, the principal character, Pinkie Brown, and the woman he chooses to be his wife, Rose Wilson, felt strongly about. Hell is a dreaded place neither one wants to face. Pinkie is a remorseless thug who wants to rise among the criminal element operating in Brighton, the seaside resort, where the action takes place. Pinkie is an intense, and ambitious youth hell bent in avenging the death of his mentor, slain by a rival gang headed by the oily Colleoni, a powerful man in the underground. A set of circumstances influence Pinkie in the turn the story takes when he and Rose are photographed by a man at the pier with the man who Pinkie knows is responsible for the death of his friend.In the background of this version there are two groups, the Rocks and the Mods, two youth factions that meet in Brighton to fight one another, to the consternation of the businesses in town. Ida, who owns a tea shop, had been romantically involved with the man that was murdered; her suspicion falls on Pinkie, realizing he is a ruthless youth making his name among the criminal element. Ida, who employs Rose, realizes her waitress can be easily manipulated because she is weak. The main reason behind Pinkie's marrying Rose is to prevent her from testifying against him.Casting Sam Riley as Pinkie, changes the novel's tone. It is clear he is much older than an ideal man to portray the man at the center of the story. Not that Mr. Riley, a wonderful actor, is not up to task, but comparisons with the previous Pinkie of Richard Attenborough, he pales in contrast. Andrea Riseborough makes a mousy Rose and the excellent Helen Mirren is perfect as Ida. The supporting cast includes John Hurt and Andy Serkis among the players.