Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Dalbert Pringle Not really knowing what to expect from The Small Back Room, I'm glad to say that I found myself pleasantly surprised by this 1949, British production. It was one of the best character studies that I've seen (from that era) in quite a long time.Set in 1943 (in war-torn London), this beautifully restored, b&w drama held my undivided attention from start to finish.Featuring a good cast (headlined by David Farrar) and impressive camera-work (there's lots of great close-ups), The Small Back Room's story concerns the professional and personal conflicts of Sam Rice, a troubled research scientist and bomb-disposal expert with a "tin leg" and a weakness for whiskey.This solid, intense (and somewhat depressing) story even contains a scene filmed at Stonehenge. As well, there's a rather strange & surreal sequence involving clocks and a distorted whiskey bottle that gets thrown into the mix which may puzzle some viewers.All-in-all - This WW2 drama was well-worth a view.

bobsgrock While not a great film in comparison to other Archer productions such as The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, 49th Parallel or The Red Shoes, The Small Back Room is a tense and interesting British thriller that recounts what it must have felt like to live in England during World War II, a most precarious time when the threat of Nazi air invasion was constantly hanging overhead (no pun intended).In this story, David Farrar and Kathleen Byron are reunited after their tumultuous chemistry in Black Narcissus, playing a respected bomb detector and his secretary girlfriend who find themselves fighting a personal war in addition to the larger conflict amidst Europe. Farrar finds himself battling alcoholism and directors Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger create many parallels between the two instances. What is most intriguing about this film, like so many other Powell and Pressburger productions, is how the ideas are presented as just as important as the action. Most American films, particularly in the last three decades, seem to focus solely on the actions of the characters rather than the notions that lead to such activity. Here, there is constant stewing over how to effectively dismantle and recognize Nazi booby-traps, all leading up to a rather tense and dramatic conclusion in which the embittered protagonist must fight his inner demons to save the day.The plot for the most part is rather trivial. What is important, and what remains, is the fact that Britain put itself entirely on the line to save Europe and possibly the world from what was perceived as pure evil. Films like this, 49th Parallel, and Colonel Blimp were often received as war propaganda used to encourage the British public to support the war effort. Even after the war, such films were quite useful in keeping up the morale in tough times that would eventually culminate in the Cold War. To see such a film today is to understand better a small aspect of history previously unavailable.

zetes Newly released by Criterion, The Small Back Room was made by the Archers right after The Red Shoes. I had never even heard of it, and it's definitely a less well known film by the directors. In my opinion, it really is a lesser Archers movie. It reunites two of the stars of Black Narcissus, David Farrar and Kathleen Byron. Farrar plays an explosives expert during WWII who works for the government as a scientist. He and his team are on the case of a booby trap that's being dropped by the Germans from planes. He has lost his right foot in an explosion, and he's being driven crazy by phantom limb syndrome. He's also a recovering alcoholic. The only thing keeping him away from the booze is the love of his girlfriend, played by Byron. The love story is involving, and the bomb stuff is quite suspenseful. Both of the lead performances are excellent (although Byron is definitely the kind of actress I have a hard time separating from her most famous role – the sharpness of her features definitely gives off a wicked vibe to me). So why was I not blown away by this one? The major reason is that it's just too talky. There are sequences where the dialogue just goes on and on, and I found my attention wandering. There are many sequences where I could tell there were experts behind the camera, but not a lot jumped out at me. Sure, there's that one fantasy sequence with the clock and the bottle, the showiest bit of the movie, but that felt to me a bit amateurish. It's also reminiscent of two famous dream/fantasy sequences from famous movies that had been made in recent years, Spellbound and The Lost Weekend (and I would also call those sequences in those two movies overly showy, as well). The best sequence in the movie is when the scientists get a visit from a governmental minister in their lab. They hope to show him all the exciting projects they're working on, but he becomes obsessed with their calculator. All in all, I'd say this is a good movie, and one that any Archers lover will want to get a hold of, but it's a lesser work, for sure.

alan-morton Quite apart from its wartime themes, this is the best introduction I know to the world of office politics and power broking. Fans of Ricky Gervais are advised to give this little film a viewing. It has enough story lines to keep everyone happy and the cast is mighty fine at playing a variety of individuals. It's hard to think of a better supporting-role performance from Jack Hawkins, and anything with Kathleen Byron in it always has to be watchable.I've only just read the novel of the same name, on which it's based (still in print and available, and strongly recommended by the way). Comparing the two, it's easy to see how so much of the film derives from the novel; but this is far more than a film of the book. Powell and Pressburger have done a superb job of focusing and concentrating the novel's strengths.