Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

emuir-1 barefoot-gal from United States gave a spot on review of this allegorical film. Yes, it represented the decline of the British Empire after WW2. The Egyptians had just dared to thumb their noses at Great Britain by seizing the Suez Canal, and thus showed them that the Empire was finished. Other colonies were not far behind in defying the country which they felt had exploited them for so long, for which they had no loyalty. By using the dysfunctional impoverished Rice family as a metaphor, the film showed the end of an era as the once immensely popular music hall was grinding to a halt in run down theaters in seedy seaside towns, themselves coming to the end of their hey-day as package holidays to the Mediterranean were becoming popular and affordable. Entertainment by fading vaudevillians which which would have appealed to a captive audience of servicemen and people who could not go abroad in war time no longer had appeal. The audience wanted something new. The audience had no loyalty to a form of entertainment which had held a monopoly until alternatives arrived, just as today's audiences have deserted the cinema for TV, and now are deserting TV for DVD's and Internet downloads. Supermarket checkouts have replaced individual service in groceries, and on line retailing is replacing department stores. Why should they care? Those who cannot adapt, perish.Archie Rice is the son of a popular music hall star of the Edwardian era, without his talent; nevertheless, it is the only life he knows and he is trying to make a living for himself and his family. We see this many times as the son of a star, with Jr. tacked on to the famous name, tries and fails to follow in his father's footsteps and cash in on his name, but there is only room for one. Archie Rice knows that he will never make it, but he has to go on as it is all he knows. As barefoot-gal noted, we are still seeing this today as proud occupations are superseded by a new technology and the skilled worker becomes obsolete.Archie makes a desperate attempt to raise money for a new show and make himself feel he still has what it takes by seducing a beauty contest runner up whose affluent mother will put up the money in return for a role for her daughter. We never see whether she is anything more than a pretty face awed by a whiff of show biz.Had Archie been born 20 years earlier he may well have made a good living on the halls performing the same act week after week for years as he travelled around the provinces, but there is little demand for live entertainment and millions of people are seeing a variety act at once via TV. Times are changing and he either gives in, or just goes on day after day putting one foot in front of the other and trying to hold it all together. This is a film which is uncomfortable to watch, but makes the viewer think and remember for a long, long, time. Someone referred to it as a Greek Tragedy, and I would agree.

GusF In his long and illustrious stage and screen career both before and after this film, Laurence Olivier played many kings, princes, lords, generals, statesmen and even a god. As such, the role of the third rate musical hall performer Archie Rice was a major departure for him. In spite of this, however, he claimed that he related to Rice far more so than he did to Hamlet. Olivier gives a brilliant performance as the callous, neglectful and self-absorbed never-was. In "Henry V" and "Hamlet", he delivered Shakespeare's lines as naturally as if they had just occurred to him but he is even more natural in this atypically down-to-earth role. The rest of the cast is very strong too, including Joan Plowright (the soon to be Lady Olivier), Brenda De Banzie as Phoebe, Roger Livesey (who plays Olivier's father but was less than a year his senior), Thora Hird and Alan Bates. Like Olivier, Plowright and De Banzie reprised their role from the stage version. It marked the film debuts of Plowright, Bates and Albert Finney, who played Rice's son Mick.Based on the play of the same name by John Osborne, one of the Angry Young Men who pioneered kitchen sink drama in 1950s Britain, the character of Archie Rice was written specifically for Olivier. He is not a likable or pleasant character. He has affairs left, right and centre and makes no effort to either hide them or comfort his second wife Phoebe after their son Mick is sent to Egypt. He has tense relations with most members of his family, particularly Phoebe who seems on the verge of a nervous breakdown at one point. He is more interested in carousing than being a husband, father or son. He's not exactly law abiding either since he hasn't paid income tax for 20 years. In spite of all his many flaws, however, I felt pity towards him as the film progressed and his situation became more desperate. He's quite a tragic figure.The play and the film are set against the backdrop of the Suez Crisis. The decline of the music hall was meant as an allegory for the decline of British influence on the world stage. Archie's father Billy, a far more successful music hall star from days gone by, represents the British Empire at its height and espouses traditional, conservative values in contrast to the more liberal views of Jean, who took part in a peace rally in Trafalgar Square.

mark worrell One of the best British films of the sixties, The Entertainer was written as an allegory of Britain's fall from grace by the leading fist-shaker of England's band of Angry Young Men who stormed the London stage with revolutionary new ideas and content, John Osborne. While Look Back In Anger is a more decorated play, this film adaption by Osborne and Nigel Kneale carried the flag of teeth-crunching kicks that the gang of young playwrights hoped to startle the daylights out of England with. Reading the other viewer comments, it is obvious most folks were looking for a Disney story with a Shakespearean performance by Lawrence Olivier. A happier ending? Great Britain forgot to supply one, Andy up there in the mountains somewhere, and the seedy digs were meant to be depressingly seedy, as was the dwindling talent of the family, and its reliance in the end on the grand old name and the grand old accomplishments of the past, as Archie Rice gave his best in replacing his revered father, Billy. Note his offkey performance in singing early on and then the eloquent on key final rendition of "Why Should I Care" as the final performance ends not with a curtain call, but with the hook, as the theater management (those other nations running the world today) angrily demand that Archie get off the stage because he is through, finished, washed up, fired, kaputsky, so long and goodbye. From the direction of Tony Richardson to the selection of grand old places along the sea that Britain once ruled with absolute certainty, everything and every moment of this film are topnotch. The aforementioned slandered scene with Roger Livesey as the Grandfather, Billy Rice, and Brenda de Banzie as Phoebe Rice, involving a misunderstanding over a piece of cake, is one of the most moving and depressingly realistic family arguments ever written. It may not be Olivier's greatest performance ever, but for certain it is the best one ever filmed. It also features the film debut of two actors who would establish themselves among the very best performers Great Britain has offered us, Alan Bates and Albert Finney, along with the introduction of Joan Plowright. As for the unkind comment about Olivier marrying Joan Plowright and this somehow having an ironic similarity to the theme of Archie and his young women; they married in 1961 and REMAINED together until Olivier's death in 1989, which is completely the opposite of the point made in the story. Well anyone is allowed to be in error, but this great film has to rank with our own country's Night of the Hunter as one of the most misunderstood films of all time. Don't miss it,ever, and MGM Vintage Classics has issued an excellent DVD edition.

Andy (film-critic) This was a very strange film developed in the 1960s. The dark themes of love, money, greed, and overall the protagonist's dream of being the next big sensation were chilling. This film was a perfect example of a very depressing story that never had a glimmer of light. Sure, there are several times we think that Archie will taste success, but before he is able to put the symbolic spoon into the bowl, he is shot down harder and faster than before. There is never a big break for Archie. He represents the human in even the smallest entertainer. As I read my local paper and see that Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg stopped at a local DQ earlier in the month, I can't help but realize the fact that this film is trying to show. They are human. While they may have more money and seen by more people, they are still human and have to deal with the human drama that we cope with daily. Archie is no exemption, and his struggles with love, money, family, and success are just stronger realizations of his human element. Add to this mix Archie's father and you see the true element of which I speak. Archie's father represents a dying breed of actors that do not live grandiose lifestyles, but somehow live on just their name alone. They have spent their money and rely on the kindness of strangers for favors. This is where Archie lacks. His kindness is only to women, and they continually hurt him in the long run.Outside of the 'human entertainer' concept, this is a very flat and shallow film. From the opening scene until the end, we are never quite given the big picture of this family or our surroundings. I never quite understood the scenes. Where were we? Why were we here? Who are the people that do visit Archie's shows? This builds a horrible background for our characters to live within. Without the proper structure behind our characters this forces them to crumble with the slightest bit of force. Archie's daughter Jean, the self-appointed narrator of the family, never seems to fit into her role. Plowright never seems comfortable with her character and is constantly giving off the wrong emotion during the scene. There was one part when I swore I saw her laughing. She is a distraction and a downfall for this film. Secondly, Olivier needed to contain his character a bit. I know that he was to portray an entertainer on the edge of reality, but it never showed. He needed more control over his emotions and really build a human element to his character. He was neither believable nor enjoyable to watch.From the beginning of this film I never once felt like he could be successful, and when he is the character we are trying to rejoice over, we need to feel that sensation. I needed to feel like he could really make this show work, instead of constantly being pulled deeper into his depression. This goes with Archie's father as well. It is possible to play too senile, and this is a perfect example. The entire cake scene (when you see it you will see) was laughable instead of emotional. The only character that worked decently well in this film was Phoebe. She had a touch character to grapple with and it felt like Brenda De Banzie was the only one carrying her weight in this film. Her emotion and power made some of the scenes worth watching instead of completely unbearable.Finally, I would like to say that with the background taking second fiddle to the actors, and the actors taking second fiddle to the background, this band needed longer hours practicing. Not only was this film confusing, but it also only allowed us to see one segment of the story. I needed more pre-story information or possibly a better ending to really allow me to connection with Archie. There was nothing forcing me to feel sympathy for the main character. I didn't know enough about him, nor did I really feel comfortable with the family dynamics between him and Phoebe. What was their relationship? Plutonic? Who knows? All I do know is that director Tony Richardson did not have control over this film. He seemed to slip between what his star player of the film (Laurence Olivier) and a developed story. I do not see why Laurence was nominated for an Oscar for this role. There was nothing spectacular.Overall, maybe I missed the boat on this film. Perhaps I was expecting my first Laurence Olivier film to blow me out of the water, but instead all I found was a jumbled mess of papers. I understand that the world of entertainment is not as glamorous as we think it is, but it is not as depressing as Richardson shows in this film. I needed a stronger balance and a better cast to make this film work for me. I needed to see some reason for me to attach myself to Archie, but sadly there was nothing. This film failed for me, but I will not give up on Olivier, I think he can prevail.On a side note, maybe it is just me, but I thought that Olivier in this film resembled Robin Williams in not only the way that he spoke, but also the facial mannerisms. Odd, maybe it is just me…Grade: ** out of *****