You won't be disappointed!

Strong and Moving!

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.

This film is about a not especially talented vaudeville-style actor (played by Olivier) who sings a little and does some comedy--but not especially well. It's set in some British town by the sea (probably Brighton) and is set in 1956--when this sort of low-brow entertainment was on its way out and during the Suez Incident (the younger son is sent there soon after the film begins). This actor is pretty obnoxious and brings misery to his family since he's basically no good and selfish. The film switches from his viewpoint to his daughter's (played by Olivier's soon wife-to-be, Joan Plowright). She sees again and again that he's a jerk but despite everything, she is strangely loyal to this rogue. The rest of the family is pretty much living in Olivier's shadow and caters to his every obnoxious whim. The only exception is Olivier's father--an excellent character study of a man who tries to do the right thing by everyone.Technically speaking, this is a very good film--the actors all did a fine job and the writing was pretty good as well. The problem for me was that I just didn't feel much of a connection, as it was hard to care about any of them. Now this isn't a complaint so much as saying that this type of character study may apply to some, it's not a film that will appeal to a wide audience. I guess my problem is that I have known people like the jerk Olivier played in the film and I felt irritated with him and his family for accepting his obnoxious behaviors. Sure, this is true to life--there are people like the one Olivier played who are users and ne'r do wells and there are many family members that put up with the lies and mistreatment. In some ways, I could see the film as being very therapeutic for some--it just wasn't something I particularly enjoyed or needed to see.

The underlying theme of this movie is the end of the British empire, played out in allegory with the end of a not very talented "entertainer". The poet John Mansfield a few decades before this movie was made gave Britons an inkling of what was coming. Two wars and a softness grown out of a century of milking its colonies finally had to come to end. This film is not what the average movie viewer wants, much less understands when the creators of this project reveal to the audience what lies ahead. When Archie is yanked off the stage, it is the symbolic end of Great Britan as a great power. The Suez war and Archies's son as a relic of Britan's once dominant power are a backdrop to political and military events when this film was in production. The Suez war was not backed by the US. The British learned that the day was over when it could exert influence let alone dominant military actions without US backing. Catch the line in the beginning of the film when Archie's daughter is being asked to leave" a dying country". That line establishes the events to follow, for Archie and England.

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 *****