Sorry, this movie sucks

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

There is little to add to the mostly sympathetic reviews of this vintage (1956)comedy. Possibly 'charm' is the nearest one-word definition of its nostalgic appeal. It is highly unlikely that anything even remotely resembling a 'flea-pit' survives anywhere in England though their Gallic equivalents can still be seen in Paris albeit with a lick of paint and up-to-date projection, yet barely fifty years ago they were ubiquitous even in London - the Tolmer, P.O.W., Ionic etc. Like all good pastiche the film makers have caught the spirit of the flea-pit and added spin - in the main the flea-pits were run by average staff rather than the eccentrics-to-a-man staff of the Bijou. If nostalgia laced liberally with charm is your thing then this will prove a delight.

(75%) The second movie (The magic box being the first) of a double feature presentation at the great Woolton cinema in Liverpool is weirdly a forgotten 1950's gem of a movie that anyone with at least some affection of old and increasingly scarce independent cinemas will absolutely love. Peter Sellers isn't the main focus of the movie, he's rather more a supporting role, but he's utterly fantastic as an old projectionist with a drink problem and he provides the best laughs. The plot is simple yet effective stuff, it's very well told as you really do want to know what's going to happen next; while the pacing never bogs down, and the comedy keeps on coming until the final reel. This really is a film I'd happily recommend to anyone and everyone, and is perfect for a wet Sunday afternoon.

I won't re-say everything that the people who've written comments about the film have already said. It's quite a delightful little film. It's easy for modern audiences to imagine that nothing in black and white could be remotely as funny as any modern film, but after the movie hits its stride the laughs come fast and furious.The one major flaw is that apart from being "morally dubious," the ending smacks of deus ex machina. The film could and should have gone on for another thirty minutes to bring the contention between the two theaters to a more believable conclusion. It's as if the writers suddenly realized they only had about five minutes left of a strict time limit and grabbed at the first straw they could find to wrap it up. But that shouldn't detract from all of the movie BUT the ending, which is a perfectly delightful little comedy.The thing that interests me the most is the historical perspective the movie offers on the era in which it is set. Modern filmgoers might be surprised to see how narrow and small the Bijou's screen is, compared to modern theaters'. It's a 1.33:1 screen, 4:3 like "full-frame" TV sets. That's how the size of television screens was set, in fact; the same as movie theaters of the day.The problem was that people who got televisions were getting in the habit of staying home with the tube rather than going out to the cinema and having to put up with the crowds; in fact, television is specifically mentioned in Smallest Show as being a reason for the decline of business at the Bijou. (Funny how history is repeating itself in this era of the DVD player and home theater.) So, the film industry was looking at doing whatever they could to get butts back in seats.One of those things was cinemascope—or what we would call "widescreen." It is mentioned here in this film, in passing; when the married couple and their lawyer are putting on that conversation for the benefit of the eavesdropper, one of the things they suggest doing is upgrading to cinemascope. The studios hoped that by showing their audience a wider picture than TVs could, they would entice people back to the theater. (They probably did not anticipate all the contention this would eventually cause when widescreen movies were shown on TV-compatible formats, with some people complaining about part of the picture being chopped away and others complaining about black bars on their screen.) Color movies were another such innovation, and so was 3D.But amusingly, and probably unintentionally, Smallest Show also hits upon some of the other things filmmakers tried—most notably William Castle. Castle was famous for enhancing the experiences of his films with gimmicks to make the audience feel like they were "participating" in the film—wiring up theater seats with joy buzzers, flying skeletons over the audience, and so on. If he COULD have shaken the entire theater when a train pulled in on screen, he probably would have. (Although, come to think of it, the Sensurround system a decade later would do more or less exactly that.) And turning up the heat during desert movies would probably have been right up his alley, too—though in his case, cashing in with cold drink sales would probably have been an afterthought.

By some chance i watched this film yesterday morning,and in the afternoon i drove past the spot in Kilburn where the exterior had been constructed on my way to an organ concert at the Gaumont State Kilburn.I also passed the site of the Classic Kilburn,now a petrol station,which was the sort of cinema epitomised by "The Bijou".In the 1950s,when the film was made,there were a lot of cinemas,or flea pits as we called them like "The Bijou".Mainly surviving on revivals of old films.The Classic chain in particular.I loved these old cinemas,and although they were not as rundown as "the Bijou" they still had seen better days.Unfortunately many of these cinemas were located in high streets and thus were prime targets for the newly emerging phenomenon of supermarkets.So not only is this film a comedic masterpiece but to me it is a warm reminder of the passing of these marvelous places.