bondboy422 This is a film about Archie Rice,"The Entertainer" who is a variety artist at the time music halls were becoming extinct and television had virtually destroyed that way of life.Archie Rice wants to find backers for his show at what becomes a tragic price. He wants to support his family and getting this show together is a last ditch attempt.Billy his father played by Roger Livesey was a very successful star in his day wants to help in anyway he can.Archie Rice as played by Laurence Olivier has not had the success of his father and the stench of failure is never far away. His son Mick is soldier and he is involved in the Suez crisis -- Olivier strongly conveys his concern for his son as he immediately switches on the radio for news.His performance as Archie is staggeringly brilliant -- there is no sentimentality or self pity -- just someone having protective layers stripped away.He is not a nice man and his "dead behind the eyes" description is accurate though he pays in spades for his ruthlessly opportunistic behaviour.As with Jimmy Porter, John Osborne created another unforgettable character.

MartinHafer 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.

blanche-2 Laurence Olivier is "The Entertainer," in a 1960 film based on the John Osborne play in which Olivier played one of his greatest roles, Archie Rice. He's surrounded by Joan Plowright as Archie's daughter Jean, and Brenda de Banzie as his emotionally fragile second wife, Phoebe. Olivier, Plowwright and de Banzie all repeat their stage roles, and it was while in the play that Olivier and Plowright met, fell in love, married, and stayed together until his death. Albert Finney is Mick and Alan Bates is Frank, Archie's sons, and Roger Livesey is Billy Rice, Archie's father and a beloved, well remembered music hall performer. Daniel Massey plays the role of Graham. It's an auspicious cast of veterans and newcomers.Archie has followed in his father's footsteps with a lot less success. He's a second-rate entertainer - and that's being kind - in a seaside resort - and his show is in trouble. Archie's in trouble, too, as he's an undischarged bankruptcy and everything is in his wife's name. He's a fairly overt womanizer, which makes his wife a wreck. She's afraid of dying alone and wants the family to move to Canada and join a successful relative in the hotel business. But Archie won't give up following every dream in spite of some harsh realities. He takes up with a 20-year-old second prize beauty contestant - her father's rich and can back his new show.As I read through the reviews on IMDb, I have to wonder where some people's hearts are. That's not a comment on the people, believe me, rather on the world we live in. I can tell you this - if you think what Olivier does isn't special and can't understand why he was nominated for an Oscar, if you can't see that he is Everyman, if you can't see the comment on Britain in general - you just haven't lived enough yet. You'll see this film again one day and it'll hurt, believe me. There can't be anyone my age, especially with ambition and a creative mind, who can't understand what Archie Rice is going through. Though he's in no way a sympathetic character, one can empathize with his life and begrudgingly admire the fact that he refuses to take the easy way out.Jean, since she doesn't live full time with this bad road company version of "Long Day's Journey Into Night" - i.e., her family - is sympathetic to both Phoebe's hysteria and her father's delusions. The scene over the cake - one of the reviewers on the board found it disturbingly realistic - there's someone who knows dysfunction when he sees it. A brilliant scene, but nothing beats Archie's monologue to his daughter when he asks her to look at his eyes. "I'm dead," he says.Olivier has said this is his favorite character as it contains so much of him. It's obvious from interviews with Olivier that it does. Like many highly successful people, he began to see himself as Archie, a kind of fake who, as Archie says, can be warm and smiling and feel nothing. "It's all tricks," Olivier told writer Jack Kroll once. It's not an uncommon feeling. It wasn't all tricks, of course, and as we see in Archie's final version of the song that ran through the film, "Why Should I Care?" he had finally reached the part of himself that makes a truly great artist, like the woman he heard sing the spiritual. Olivier, of course, hit those heights many times.England is pronounced as a "dying country" in the beginning of the film, which sets up the metaphor of Archie as a symbol of the country. I'm not British - it's for those who lived during that time period in 1960 to comment on it, and they have. There are some brilliant reviews on the board covering that subject."Why Should I Care?" Archie sings. I don't have an answer. But if anyone could make me care, it was always Lord Laurence Olivier, be he the ruined man in "Carrie," the beautiful Heathcliff in "Wuthering Heights," James Tyrone on stage in "Long Day's Journey," or Max de Winter in "Rebecca." An amazing legacy, one in a million - don't miss him as Archie Rice in "The Entertainer."

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 *****