soliitho This film is well worthy of your time. If you are into crime movies with more atmosphere than fast action, I mean.Why Simon Moore didn't direct more, I really don't know. The film is skilfully composed, actors' performances are admirable (with exception of Laura San Giacomo who's acting is under average). Photography is something to appreciate, too.I was often surprised at how few people know of this title and I am personally always glad when I find such a gem outside of hype area.I like noir and I like different, yet not bizarre. If you think alike, try this film.

Robert J. Maxwell I don't know if this story really belongs on the big screen. It would have been fine as an HBO special or something. However, the performers are better than one would expect in such a venue. Liam Neeson is so likable, a tall hulking actor, he seems to loom over whatever scene he appears in. And what a face! His skull seems to have no glabella whatever, his nose droops down out of the middle of his forehead, and yet he's handsome too, in a plain, masculine way, kind of like Spencer Tracy -- no glamor boy, but easy to look at. His voice too is appealing, with its Irish grace notes. And he can act too! Unlike so many brutishly big action stars, this guy can project a smelly sweaty fear, and do it without seeming ridiculous or seeming any weaker than the rest of us would be.Laura San Giacomo is an apt mismatch for Neeson. Here, in this tale set in 1959, her face is wide and her expressive eyes long and thin. She wears so much makeup she's funereally pale and her Chinese red lip rouge suggests a figure from a Dracula movie. She's tiny standing next to Neeson. His presence makes her look even more elfin, as if he could crunch one of her long bones in his fist. She has a smooth and seductive voice that doesn't sound quite believable. It's hard to forget she's acting. But it doesn't detract from her attractivness. She seems never to have found her proper niche in films; neither, for that matter, has Neeson. They both deserve better than they've gotten, with some exceptions.The plot is about a couple of murders, a near hanging, a strained friendship, a love affair or two, shots ring out, you're not supposed to carry an unlicensed gun in Britain, can I really trust him/her?, and all together has more twists to it than a corkscrew. Towards the end there is an execution scene that is very crudely done but intensely gripping all the same. (The crosscuts are dizzying.)I won't give away the ending. Ordinarily the resolution of the plot isn't really as important as what's led up to it, but in this case the end is the best part of the film, or at least the most surprising.Watching this movie wasn't a waste of time. But, Great Merciful Heavens, I'll never go to Brighton on holiday.

helpless_dancer Fairly good story about a 2 bit scoundrel private eye who apparently becomes involved in a double homicide while running a sleazy con game. A large insurance settlement is at stake and the police must figure out if the victim's wife did the deed or if it was her rival, hubby's mistress. Or could it have been someone else.....?

Sebastian B A bit of a confusing start of this perfect whodunit is the only bad thing about this film.To start with the script, it´s brilliant. It is credible, well written,has clues that makes it worth watching over and over again (even without the surprises that you encounter the first time you watch it). I like the fact that this is not a Hollywood production. I seriously do not think that this script would have made it to production without some changes if it was made in hollywood.Then the acting. Liam Neeson puts on a splendid performance, complex acting with certain subtle things that I did not notice the first viewing, which made sense while watching it again. His best film IMO (knowing that a lot of people thinks that "Schindler´s list" is better). I do not recognize the rest of the actors, but no one did bad.Grade: 9 out of 10So if you like suspense whodunit, this is a must see.