Interesteg
What makes it different from others?
Matialth
Good concept, poorly executed.
Beystiman
It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.
SnoopyStyle
The movie starts in a bathroom with Kelly (Lorraine Stanley) bruised and battered, while young Joanne (Georgia Groome) is cowering. They scrap together enough money for a train trip from London to Brighton. They're on the run from some dangerous gangsters led by Stuart Allen (Sam Spruell). The movie flashbacks to the beginning when prostitute Kelly befriends 12 year old runaway Joanne. Kelly's pimp Derek (Johnny Harris) tries to turn her.This is a gritty little indie from newcomer writer/director Paul Andrew Williams. The performance are all solid. The two leads are amazing. The movie does the bottom dwelling grim pretty well. There are some slower spots in the movie. But the great performances and the harrowing story are building to a really good dark ending. A minor complaint is that it doesn't go through with it. Instead it has a happy ending which is probably more sellable.
Mike B
This has a street-wise and gritty feel to it (i.e. no glamour prostitutes in luscious locations). After being forced by her pimp, a prostitute lures a young homeless girl to perform for a client. Things go awry and they are forced to flee. They are then pursued by the pimps plus their clients. It all leads to a forceful conclusion.The pace is frantic throughout as we move from seedy London surroundings to Brighton on the coast of England. The language is colloquial and gives added depth (I had the sub-titles on). Lorraine Stanley (the prostitute) and Georgia Groome (the homeless girl) provide a tough texture for this film.
millymanic
One of the most harrowing films I have seen in a long time; a little clunky in places, but the superb acting by all involved glosses over that fact. Georgia Groome is especially note-worthy for such a tough role at a young age, the partnership between her and the character of Kelly is believable - making us route for them even more. At every turn, when the film feels it is about to walk into a cliché, especially towards the end, it admirably, if not horrifyingly, veers away. British cinema has always produced some of the best kitchen-sink / social problem films, and London to Brighton stands up as an exceptional addition to that canon.
dsprague-795-220325
Let me start by saying that for the first 95% or so, I loved this movie. Gritty, fast-paced and the Joanne role was astonishingly well acted. But there is absolutely nothing that annoys me more than a good, realistic film with a joke ending like that. Why would the pedo's son go to all the trouble of terrifying and traumatizing the girl far more than his father likely did? If the kid didn't need years of therapy from being tied to a bed, she sure as hell did after being chased all over England, dragged to what she thought was her grave then seeing two people get their heads blown off. What was the point of that? Secondly, why was Kelly given a moral free pass from the director? She sure played a significant role in the kid being tied up by a pedophile. Take the scene where she's waiting while Joanne is upstairs. She only goes to help when she hears screaming. So what, it would have been OK if the pedo had just gone about the business of destroying a child quietly? Why wasn't she shot with the two thugs? I have no patience for the "she was a victim too and had no choice" argument. When confronted with destroying a child she had all kinds of choices- run away, take the beating from her pimp etc. Finally, this film strives to be realistic. Well, sorry to say it but in real-life Kelly and Joanne end up in an unmarked grave with bullets in the back of their heads. In real life, Kelly would be an addict willing to give up her kid sister, never mind some kid she's never met. It sucks but it's true and this would have been a more meaningful, more honest film with that ending rather than the laughable fairy-tale tacked onto this thing.
