This film is an interesting return to the general subject matter of Powell and Pressburger's black and white war films (49th Parallel, One of our Aircraft, etc..), but, made four years after the end of the war, it is a moody piece that focuses on a man disabled by the war. It is typical of their work in that it features brilliantly well-rounded, truly adult characters without easy answers or one-dimensional poses; it is also a departure from their other films of the period in its lack of flamboyance and otherworldly flair. The gritty style - no music, for example, and wonderfully spare dialogue by Pressburger - is perfectly echoed by the intense performances of Kathleen Byron and David Farrar. As always, Powell's keen visual sense is paramount to the brilliance of the Archers' films, and the bomb-defusing scene on the beach makes great use of the setting in its compositions and editing. Although it is not the best introduction to the work of Powell and Pressburger, this film is a keen testament to the capacity of their storytelling abilities in weaving a tale of a man who finds redemption through work and love. Whether their films are explorations of the power of art or the effects of war, I consistently find their work profoundly moving. Let's hope that it is FINALLY released on video or, better still, DVD. (Attention, Scorcese!!!!)

After the wild fantasies of Red Shoes, Black Narcissus, Matter of Life and Death (and to a lesser extent Canterbury Tales, Colonel Blimp, and Spy in Black) this was a quiet Archers film, but one I enjoyed very much. David Farrar and Kathleen Byron are fine, well-cast, adequate - the supporting players (including Cyril Cusack and a youngish Sid James) are good, and the story, although slight, keeps the interest and is done rather well. Not entirely sure about the hallucination scene, although that in itself is well-done. I prefer the wild colours and textures of other films by the same team, but this is one I'd recommend for a look.

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.

As I am sometimes less than kind in my comments of the Archers, it was a pleasure to rediscover the other day "The Small Back Room" , a film I had not seen since its original release. Although this is generally regarded as one of their minor works, presumably because of its lack of flamboyance, it takes for once a very serious theme and treats it in a thoroughly mature way; that of the psychologically flawed individual and how he reacts when faced with possibly the greatest challenge in his professional career. Two of Sidney Lumet's finest films, "Equus" and "The Verdict" have the same subject. Sammy Rice, the boffin of "The Small Back Room", is struggling with alcoholism and the mental as well as the physical pain of coping with an artificial foot when he is called upon to discover the way to dismantle one of several booby-trap explosive devices dropped by the Germans over Britain in 1943. The casting of the two central characters is perfect. Although the part of Sammy calls for someone with a James Mason like authority, a much lesser actor, David Farrar, rises to the occasion particularly as he has the advantage of a large lumbering frame that conveys a certain physical awkwardness. As his sympathetic ladyfriend, Susan, Kathleen Byron drops her "Black Narcissus" melodramatics to give the performance of her lifetime as the woman who really knows how to handle Sammy when he is at his lowest. Add to this the fine camerawork of Christopther Challis, particularly liberal in its use of huge closeups that significantly heighten the psychological tension of the narrative, and you have a film well worthy of attention. In only two scenes does it falter. Unfortunately by conforming to the tiresome custom of British films of the period of sending up the Establishment, it presents Robert Morley as a rather silly senior minister. Although this would have probably fitted in the context of a comedy it is out of place in a film as darkly toned as this. Then there is the melodramatic lapse of resorting to Teutonic Expressionism when Sammy is fighting his alcoholism. In this nightmarish sequence he is physically dwarfed by a giant whisky bottle and an alarm clock. This is one of only two scenes to use background music. For the rest, untypically for this period, it does without. It makes for a stronger, more hard-edged experience.

Master filmmakers Powell and Pressburger return from their much-more-famed stint to make their much-more-underrated "smaller" film "The Small Back Room", a combined thriller/romance in heady expressionistic tones. Emphasis put on the last phrase-work there, this movie is GORGEOUS. It's not really noir, but the lighting and staging put the genre to shame. Among many surprises here are some of the actors of Black Narcissus taking on new amazing roles, a mysterious German boobie-trap, and an expressionistic interlude that matches the opera from Red Shoes but is structured more like The Life and Death of 9413, a Hollywood Extra. The timing of this movie is great, too, as long involved sequences showcasing Sammy's alcoholism and doubt stretch to painful lengths, whereas his technically much longer scene defusing a bomb is so tense that it seems to whip by in a second. Fans of the Archers should pretty much make it a point to see this. People unfamiliar with them could possibly get overwhelmed by all the promises of Black Narcissus, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, The Red Shoes, and A Matter of Life or Death, but could start here for something considered a bit smaller but just as good. A Small Back Room may not have quite the credentials, but it has all of the quality of the Archers' oeuvre. --PolarisDiB

I certainly can see why some people refer to this movie as a small masterpiece. I did not go into it expecting big things like the previous Powell/Pressburger classics "Black Narcissus" and "The Red Shoes". However, rather than find this to be an interesting psychological drama about one man's battle with alcohol due to pressures in his professional life and a handicap that has obviously made him bitter, I found a rather claustrophobic, talkie drama that for the most part failed to hold my interest and left me scrambling to find my way back when all of a sudden things began to really happen. The sudden appearance of a giant booze bottle overshadowing its leading man (David Farrar) reminded me of things that audiences had already seen on screen in films prior to this: Ray Milland's withdrawal in "The Lost Weekend" and Gregory Peck's nightmares in "Spellbound". Having been bored for 90 minutes when this came up, I found myself chuckling at it. But then it got serious when the film began to deal with Farrar's profession and all the chat that had gone on before: defusing a bomb found on the beach. This comes in the last ten minutes of the film, and is as nail biting as everything else before was sleep inducing. Had the first 75% of the film been more like this and filled with less exposition, I would certainly find it a masterpiece.

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.

I have often sought out black and white films from the British cinema and was not disappointed when I came across The Small Back Room. Now possibly one of my favourite films of all time, the very good, simple underlying plot is overtaken by the principal characters, played by David Farrar and Kathleen Byron. An excellent supporting cast, including Michael Gough, Jack Hawkins and Leslie Banks enables the viewer to pull the curtains on a rainy afternoon and to lose themselves in a world that is not quite the 1943 in which the film is set and in in some ways is much later than the 1949 in which it was made. The relationship between Sammy and Susan is a deep and powerful, but secret one and is more curious when one has time to reflect and put it into its (early or late) 1940s context. The fact that they keep their feelings from their colleagues is endemic of the times but is a little curious nonetheless. A friend who knows about such things immediately latched onto the way that another male character fixes his intense gaze upon Sammy Rice to the extent that it now makes me a tiny bit uncomfortable in a non-21st century way. Keep watching this film and you will see more and more interplay between people that implies a further raft of professional and social relationships that the film never actually explores or explains. My verdict: Catch a stinking cold and take a day off work. Curl up on the sofa with a hot drink and lose yourself in a world that you will want to keep coming back to.

Pressburger and Powell are well known for their films like "Black Narcissus" (1947), "The Red Shoes" (1948) and "Life and Death of Colonel Blimp" (1943). This film is probably one of their weakest, largely because there is no real plot, but rather a series of minor subplots that only rarely intersect. The strongest of these sub plots is the romance between a bitter scientist and a secretary, wonderfully played by David Farrar and Kathleen Byron. They're part of a scientific "think tank" where Farrar is in conflict with the marketing efforts of Jack Hawkins, who seems more concerned with having projects approved instead of savings lives. Behind the scenes, the war effort and the political effort are at odds, reflected in Leslie Banks as a Colonel and Robert Morley as a Minister. If these sub plots are confusing enough, there is the rush to solve a problem of exploding bombs. Wonderful acting can't replace the lack of a coherent plot. And the focus on a bottle of liquor is far overdone, as is the constant closeups of a key opening a door. Sophomoric stuff at best.

"Hour of Glory" is a very nice war film but it's not the sort of film that most would like. That's because if you are looking for action, suspense and the like, this film won't work for you, as it's focused more on creating a portrait of an individual instead of on events. I like this, but realize some people just want to see stuff happen--not look inside a person's character. This film is about a very odd man. He's a sort of engineering genius--a guy who knows about bombs, guns and the like--and he and his co-workers are not strictly part of the military or government. Here is makes him interesting--while you like Sammy Rice and can't help but admire him, he's a very screwed up man. He has a drinking problem that helps him cope with the rigors of the job as well as some vague leg injury. He is a valuable man to the war effort--but also a mess. It creates a very odd portrait--and also SEEMS to say that the best way for his lover to help him is to encourage or at least ignore the drinking! Odd--but also compelling and worth your time. By the way, if you do watch it, look for the surreal withdrawal scene--it's pretty amazing.