"An unconvincing remake of Graham Greene's story, I didn't believe that any of them were anything other than actors playing parts which even they didn't believe in. Watch the 1947 version to see a really nasty Pinkie and a Rose that one can care about."

I enjoyed most of the movie but I didn't believe the main character would sacrifice so much for a girl that it seemed like he felt indifferent about. I felt that if he had loved her like she said that he did then this movie would have been do much better. Some of it seemed so silly that he would do some of the actions that he did would when he could have killed people to cover it up. I did like the actors in it ans Sam Riley gives a great performance in it.

Dispite the title, it really doesn't rock.

Young 'gang member' tries to lead after the death of his mentor. Taking on the cops, other gangs, the cake shop and any other bad mother found on the sea front. Pinky uses Knives, naughty words and seaside apparatus to be a bad boy and lead naive youngs girl to do his bidding.

The film tries to be 60's cool but ends up being really annoying. A poor choice of actors who coincidently are poor actors delivers a film of cheese and frustration.

This had potential to be a really good British, bbc, film council sponsored flick. Instead, it is just shit. Not even a decent soundtrack. Just an awful conclusion.

I have watched it so you don't have to waste your time.

I'm not sure if this is an underrated film or if as a big fan of the book and Sam Riley I'm simply overrating it.

Either way I thoroughly enjoyed it, the film looks beautiful and their is a star cast with great performances especially from the aforementioned Riley as Pinkie Brown. Sure it may be somewhat different from the book but I don't see that as a criticism, it works well enough as its own film anyway. I shan't spoil the ending though I am still unsure whether I liked that or would have changed it to be more like the original

Overall its worth a watch whether you've read the book or not and I'll leave you to make your own minds up of how you feel about it.

It's not bad, just seems very slow and not that interesting.

A great cast and an intriguing story adapted from narrative architect Graham Greene--despite the packed plot and a deep bench of actors, the film dulled me senseless. A bizarrely operatic score highlights the film's seemingly aimless ambition--the filmmakers couldn't seem to decide whether they wanted a stirring romantic melodrama or a taut crime thriller, genre confusion that muddles rather than enlivens the proceedings. Scenes with rich potential for drama and tension are walked through as though the goal of the film were simply to get to the end. The predictably desaturated "period" cinematography and flailing off-kilter camera angles only added to the sense that this was a narrative golden egg dropped in the hands of filmmakers who didn't know what to do with it. I'd be curious to see the 1947 version, especially since it was adapted by Greene himself and Terence Rattigan!

This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.

Very stylish and well acted film let down by a pretty bad storyline.

The second adaptation of Graham Greene's devastating novel updates the story to the 1960s, but this isn't really the problem with it. The film may be the dictionary definition of a 'mixed bag', with some things very right and some things very wrong. Sam Riley and Andrea Riseborough are excellently cast and the film gets a real momentum about two thirds of the way through, but Helen Mirren, while very good, is wrong for the role of the sly Ida Arnold, and getting The Greatest Last Line Of All Time wrong is pretty unforgivable. Lots works though, there's still some great scenes and the move in time is refreshingly audacious, but part of the job of an adaptation is to spot what aspects of the book cannot be tampered with. In the end, this Brighton Rock fails to do that.

My favorite town, my favorite actor. Pretty solid acting and some slightly disturbing scenes, love it!