UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Bill Slocum "The Smallest Show On Earth" is the kind of comedy they used to churn out in England with ferocious consistency; despite its charms not one to remember except for the presence of the greatest film comedian of the sound era just coming into his own.That comedian is Peter Sellers, and "Smallest Show" gives him fourth billing as alcoholic projectionist Mr. Quill, one of three employees at a broken-down cinema in the dregs of England who faces unemployment when a young couple inherits the place with plans to sell out.It's a small role, in a small film, but Sellers as Quill is very good, better in fact than he was earlier fare like "The Ladykillers" (great film, small part) and "The Naked Truth" (big part, lousy film). Here we see Sellers for the first time as the funnyman who can tug on your heartstrings, working your sympathies with just a furrowed eyebrow or shuffling of feet. From 1959 to 1965 he had as good a run in movies as any star ever did, and this 1957 effort served as springboard.That's not so much of a reason to see "Smallest Show" for non-Sellers fans, so here's another: Sellers doesn't even deliver the best performance. The other two staffers, Bernard Miles as Old Tom the doorman and Margaret Rutherford (an Oscar winner a few years later) as Mrs. Fazackalee the ticket woman are every bit as good, while Bill Travers and Virginia McKenna as the young couple make for pleasant company. If not for the fact the jokes are weak, and the storyline thin, this would be a true winner, rather than just a mildly worthwhile Ealing Studios-wannabe relic.The main joke in "Smallest Show" centers around the dilapidated state of the old theater, or "kinema", that the couple inherits. The projector threatens to fall apart whenever a train passes. The ceiling is festooned with cobwebs. Portraits of Theda Bara and Douglas Fairbanks Sr. line the walls, and the features on offer are ancient cowboy films starring "Drifting Slim Stanley, Deputy U.S. Marshall". It's at times a stirring tribute to the movie business in its infancy, especially one scene where Mrs. Fazackalee plays her house organ to the flickering light of an old silent. But it never gels as a story."I'm sure there's a business like show business, but somehow I don't think this is it," McKenna's Jean jokes when the couple first get an eyeful of the place. That's about as good a one-liner as this film manages, despite the presence of "Ladykillers" writer William Rose as a scripter here.Director Basil Dearden makes sure we get plenty of cute scenes featuring Travers and McKenna struggling with the way things operate in their new place. The plot, what there is of it, centers around the couple's attempt to make a go at running the movie house, or at least making it look like they are, in order to persuade the owner of a rival theater to buy them out. The rival owner resorts to some shady tricks, but one never really has to worry overmuch how things turn out, as it falls together rather conveniently.The charm's the thing, the only thing, in watching Travers' reaction when accepting a chicken for admission, or Quill and Fazackalee at each other's throats regarding their new bosses' spending priorities: "My equipment is more important than your rats," Quill shouts, showing off Sellers' ability to melt into a thick northern English old-man accent with the help of some clever makeup.Unlike his earlier films, he really gives you a lump in the throat in this one, struggling with the bottle or skipping along a sidewalk after a good day at the box office, making you understand that the secret to Sellers was never just clever accents or physical pantomime but the preternatural empathy he brought to every part, beginning with this one.

MartinHafer The film begins with a young couple learning that they are the sole beneficiaries in a will for a relative they didn't know existed. Visions of great wealth and success dance in their minds, though it runs out all they really inherited was a broken down and debt-riddled old movie theater--along with three old people who work there. All is not lost, though, as they discover that a large and successful movie house nearby wants to buy their property. The problem is, since they know nothing about the business, the other theater is offering next to nothing to buy them out. So, to increase the value of their business, they decide to re-open the old place and thus force a better offer.While this movie DOES feature Peter Sellers as a supporting player, you should not rush out to see it because it's a "Peter Sellers Picture". That's because although he is in the film, you'd have a hard time noticing that this is the same Peter Sellers you're used to seeing, as his role is decidedly non-comedic. He is made up to look like a rumpled 60-something year-old man and he's fine in the role--but he is given nothing funny to say or do and Sellers plays the role very straight. Now this does not mean that this isn't an enjoyable film, though it's a very, very mild comedy with none of the silliness or quirkiness you might expect from a Sellers film.Don't expect the magic of an Ealing picture or a Sellers farce. This is just a cute little film about the foibles that develop as they try to make a go of it, though I must say the ending was pretty strange and didn't fit in well with the rest of the film. Decent acting and a likable but slight plot make it a nice little time-passer, but not a whole lot more.

andrewgwb-3 I vote this movie 9/10 and I love it. I won't say anything about the plot or characters as it's all been said by now....but. If I had written this movie now, I think I would have had the 'Grand' burn down under other circumstances. Maybe a lightning strike starting a fire during a thunderstorm, or an electrical fire - anything except old Tom going out with a drum of fuel oil. A more dramatic ending could have been achieved under these circumstances, and it would also have spared the young couple agonizing with their conscience in their exit from the scene,which was hollow. The ending was definitely a bit tatty, but apart from that - excellent.

benbrae76 Husband-and-wife team Bill Travers and Virginia McKenna play a newly married couple who inherit a dilapidated cinema (and its elderly, incompetent and equally dilapidated staff), and try to restore it to something like it's original glory. However they soon discover that it's not going to be as easy as perhaps they first thought. There is competition from a huge modern cinema just across the street, which is in need of a car-park. The site of the old "Bijou" would be just the thing.This is a terrific comedy (written by Basil Dearden), and features Peter Sellers, Margaret Rutherford, Bernard Miles as the cinema staff, and Leslie Phillips as the Bijou owner's solicitor.Any American, or indeed any youngster, watching this movie might be slightly bemused, and consider it all a bit implausible. I can tell them that it's not, and so can any Brit over a certain age. When this film was made, every town in the UK had a "flea-pit" (i.e. it's very own "Bijou"). In the town in which I was raised, it was called "The Select".Events depicted in this movie happened at these cinemas on a regular basis. The films shown were usually as decrepit as the cinema itself. (In the case of the "Select" they were usually the awful B&W "horror" movies which no other theatre would show. If the film didn't break at least once, or a reel was put on the projector in time, and/or was not in the wrong order, you were there on a lucky night.) For all of us of the age, to re-watch this little memorial to the old flea-pit, is a real nostalgic blast from the past, and I defy any newcomers to the movie, not to warm to it, either from it's occasional pathos and/or it's hilarious comedy. So go on, take my advice, have a good scratch, and watch it. The film may be fiction, but what you see actually happened!