parcdelagrange I was never a fan of re-makes of classic films, but that said, some are better than others, The Richard Thomas re-make of "All Quiet on the Western Front" was quite a good and entertaining, as was the Martin Clunes version of "Goodbye Mr Chips", but this remake of "Brighton Rock" was an abysmal rip off of a classic British film. The lead character, Pinkie, was portrayed to perfection by Richard Attenborough in the original 1947 version of this film, he personified evil, the actor who played Pinkie in this new version was just a pale imitation and not very believable as a psychotic killer. The direction and photography of the newer version just cannot be compared to the 1947 version and the deviation from the original plot seems contrived. I realise that actors such as Richard Attenborough and a director like John Boulting are very hard acts to follow, but this film does not even get near to conveying the sense of menace of men like Pinkie Brown and the atmosphere of the under belly of society that the old black and white version did. The only other remake of a classic film I have seen that is marginally worse than this one is the Tom Hanks version of "The Ladykillers", why do they bother?

210west Riley may be, elsewhere, a good actor, but here he's too old, too exaggeratedly creepy and sinister. It's a sour one-note performance, unrelieved by moments of humanity that might have made him, in other hands, a little bit endearing. His Pinkie spends virtually the entire film glowering menacingly at everyone, including Rose. He even glowers when he's staring into space.Richard Attenborough, in the much more satisfying 1947 version, was of course menacing as well -- Pinkie is, after all, a killer -- but at least Attenborough was much smaller physically, as well as younger and more open-faced, and displayed an occasional touch of boyish vulnerability that made Rose's falling for him fairly believable. In this bleakly charmless remake, Riley stalks through the city like a character in an Edward Gor ey cartoon, looking so grim, so downright homicidal and malevolent, that anyone of any sense would cross the street to avoid him. And he speaks in such a hoarse, croaking snarl that when he informs Rose he was once a choirboy, you feel like laughing.Which makes it all the more improbable that Rose would fall in love with him so quickly; the fact that she does so makes her seem -- in contrast to the touching, naive Rose of the 1947 version -- almost pathological and, frankly, retarded. She reminded me of the serial killer's mentally challenged girlfriend, played by Juliette Lewis, in "Kalifornia." And that Rose would actually brandish a knife at Helen Mirren's Ida and speak to her with such hostility, and that Ida would nonetheless repeatedly risk her own life on Rose's behalf... well, it all seems pretty unlikely.Also unlikely: John Hurt as the frail and elderly Corkery, talking back to Pinkie and his thug sidekick when they come for their protection money, getting -- not surprisingly -- slashed and threatened for his attitude, and yet later speaking dismissively and indeed jocularly about the young man. Pinkie is an obvious psychopath, a known killer, and makes no attempt to hide it -- in fact, he all but advertises it, it's the role he wants to play -- yet the law-abiding characters, while they disapprove of him, seem to regard him without a trace of fear.The Philip Davis character, Spicer, also seems weirdly, improbably oblivious to the danger, which is why, predictably, he winds up dead. Spicer's supposed to be a lifelong career criminal, yet he acts like a dim-witted and trusting comic-book victim who all but colludes in his own death, even returning to the gang's flat despite the fact that, hours earlier, Pinkie has rather obviously set him up and tried to have him murdered. I just don't get it.In a series of interviews on the DVD, various cast members and the writer/director spoke of their hope, indeed their fond belief, that Graham Greene would have liked this new version of his novel. I can't agree; I think it's just as well Greene was spared having to watch it.

willmossop1 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.

Steve Crook There was nothing on telly and BBC2 were showing it. It was snowing outside so I wrapped up warm and snuggled down to see if it was as bad as I feared - it was.I have a great idea for a film, they must have said to each other. We'll take a classic film like Brighton Rock (1947) and mix it up a bit with Quadrophenia so that people will think we've done some original work. If anyone asks we'll tell them that we're re-making the story from the original novel, but of course we won't bother with that really. We'll make a packet without having to do any work.We'll pull in some decent actors like Helen Mirren, John Hurt and Phil Davis, they can help us sell any film. We'll kill Phil off fairly early but he hasn't been given a decent part anyway. Helen Mirren can play the sexy older woman, played by Hermione Baddeley in the original. She can't help giving a decent performance, people would pay to see her read the phone book. John Hurt hovers in the background and doesn't really add anything to the film but we'll put his name high up on the posters.It's a shame that we can't afford any decent young actors like the young Dickie Attenborough, but as long as he looks fairly pretty and can run and shout a bit, it doesn't matter who we get to play the "lead".How can they claim they did anything original for this or went back to the original novel? There was nothing of significance that wasn't in the 1947 film. They even "borrowed" the cop-out ending with the record. Pinkie's house was definitely modelled on the 1940s rather than the 1960s.Dire, dire, dire.