Nonureva Really Surprised!

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

ernesti It appears that this film divides as people seem to hate it because it's a remake or you just love it like me who had never seen the original film before. I thought that this film is a return to the old ways of making films with style and good score. It's got that classical style in it and it appears that the makers have really put an effort in studying the old films. The music is used like they did in the old "gialli" films. That's just a perfect way to get me hooked completely even if the film wasn't that good. This movie is better than good and i can recommend it to those who prefer slower pace in films and perfect acting and good script.

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.

Ben Larson Sometimes it's a character you liked that attracts, like the role Philip Davis played in Midsomer Murders. Other times it's to see a great star like Helen Mirren.Whatever the reason, it's always good to see a film based on a Graham Greene novel, like The Third Man, This Gun for Hire, The Quiet American, and many more.A young Richard Attenborough played in this movie in the 40's, here is falls to Sam Riley (Control, Maleficent) to play the lead. He is capably assisted by Andrea Riseborough (Oblivion, Shadow Dancer), as the waitress he marries to keep her from testifying as a witness.A good neo-noir with contributions from William Hurt and Nonso Anozie (The Grey, Game of Thrones).

bandw 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.