--- title: "Sweet Smell of Success" year: 1957 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/sweet-smell-of-success" fi1m_id: "sweet-smell-of-success" imdb_id: "tt0051036" tmdb_id: 976 wikidata_id: "Q1183253" fi1m_score: 88 critics_score: 73 critics_reviews: 10 published: "2026-09-25T08:16:06.768053+00:00" updated: "2026-09-25T08:16:07.121677+00:00" region: "GB" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Sweet Smell of Success (1957) Directed by Alexander Mackendrick · 1h 37m · BBFC PG · Drama ## Identity Sweet Smell of Success - **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/sweet-smell-of-success - **Type:** Film - **Fi1m ID:** sweet-smell-of-success - **IMDb ID:** tt0051036 - **TMDB ID:** 976 - **Wikidata ID:** Q1183253 - **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051036/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/976, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1183253 **Fi1m score: 88** · Critics 73 from 10 reviews *In a sentence:* Burt Lancaster makes dinner with a senator look like something that requires legal advice > Alexander Mackendrick’s press drama is vicious, funny and superbly acted. Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis make every conversation worth watching, though the young lovers receive less of the writers’ attention. ## Synopsis New York after dark brings Sidney Falco (Tony Curtis) into the company of columnist J.J. Hunsecker (Burt Lancaster). At a dinner with a senator, J.J.’s influence is on display; in his dealings with Sidney, he has a proposition to make. There is also a private matter: his sister, Susan Hunsecker (Susan Harrison), is secretly involved with Steve Dallas (Martin Milner). J.J.’s devotion to Susan sits alongside his appetite for power. The film follows these connections through the city’s nightlife, with public influence and private relationships becoming difficult to keep apart. ## Review *Sweet Smell of Success* is a hard, funny drama about men who make other people wait for permission to matter. We recommend it, with a reservation about how little freedom it gives the people caught between its two leads. Alexander Mackendrick makes conversation feel dangerous without asking anyone to raise a fist. The men can do enough damage while remaining perfectly polite. Much of the tension comes from waiting to hear how an apparently civil remark will be received. Burt Lancaster plays J.J. Hunsecker as someone who expects the conversation to arrange itself around him. His restraint is the frightening part: he does not need to advertise the threat in every sentence. We laughed at the dinner with the senator, then felt ashamed of how much we enjoyed the intimidation. The pauses let us anticipate the next humiliation. Sitting at that table looks like a dangerous professional obligation. Tony Curtis gives Sidney Falco a more restless sort of calculation. His eagerness makes every exchange feel provisional, as though the next remark might improve his standing or destroy it. He allows the wish to impress to become ugly without making the man incomprehensible. We can see why somebody would keep trying with J.J., even when the sensible response would be to leave. A small change of tone is enough to make us reconsider how much freedom Sidney has to say no. The screenplay by Ernest Lehman and Clifford Odets gives them plenty to work with. Its insults are carefully made, and occasionally we become more aware of that workmanship than of the person speaking. That is a small cost, but it keeps some exchanges from feeling spontaneous. More often, the verbal display is exactly right for men who are always performing for one another. Alan Crosland, Jr. edits with an ear for the pause after a remark, allowing the listener’s discomfort to register before the talk resumes. James Wong Howe’s black-and-white photography gives the New York night weight and detail. We can believe that these men would want to spend their lives in this city, which matters when so much of their company is unpleasant. At the dinner with the senator, the civilised setting makes the cruelty harder to dismiss as somebody else’s problem. Elmer Bernstein’s jazz score supplies a nervous energy that suits all this manoeuvring. It keeps the film from becoming ponderous about how badly everyone behaves. The reservation concerns Susan Hunsecker and Steve Dallas, played by Susan Harrison and Martin Milner. Their secret romance offers some relief from the calculating talk elsewhere, but the couple get less interesting writing. The contrast makes sense: plain speech is welcome among people who turn every sentence into a contest. Still, we wanted them to be more than comparatively decent company. The film’s concentration on its bullies leaves the younger characters with too little space to surprise us. As a drama about the press, it is narrow and pitiless, with little interest in anyone doing an honest day’s work. That narrowness largely suits its purpose: staying close to these men lets us watch the excuses form as they speak. Over 97 minutes, the concentration rarely slackens. See it for the two lead performances and the pleasure of dialogue spoken by people who know precisely where it will hurt. *Fi1m score 88, published 25 September 2026.* ## What the critics say The reviews lean favourable, with praise clustering around the sharp dialogue, Lancaster and Curtis’s performances, and the evocation of New York after dark. Admirers find the film’s account of media power both thrilling and sharply observed, with the acting giving its vicious exchanges conviction. James Wong Howe’s black-and-white photography draws particular attention, while the jazz score also earns praise for its contribution to the nocturnal atmosphere. The spread is wide, though the available reservations are less numerous than the scores alone suggest: three entries lack enough review text to establish a specific position. Variety finds the drama compelling but questions the clarity of the columnist’s devotion to his sister. The New York Times supplies the strongest dissent, objecting to the cynical, sordid outlook and the portrayal of power and ambition as relentlessly corrupting. The central divide concerns the darkness that admirers find bracing and the dissenting review finds objectionable. ## Straight answers **Is Sweet Smell of Success worth watching?** *Sweet Smell of Success* is well worth watching for its viciously funny dialogue and Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis’s performances; we score it 88 out of 100. We recommend it particularly for those who enjoy dramas where polite conversation can be threatening, with the reservation that the young lovers receive less interesting writing than the men controlling their lives. **How long is Sweet Smell of Success, and what is it rated?** *Sweet Smell of Success* runs 1h 37m and is rated PG by the BBFC in the UK. It is a drama film. **Where can I watch Sweet Smell of Success in the UK?** *Sweet Smell of Success* is available to rent from Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV from £3.49. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service. **How does Sweet Smell of Success compare to Ace in the Hole?** *Sweet Smell of Success* favours intimate intimidation, while [*Ace in the Hole*](https://film.one/film/ace-in-the-hole) follows a reporter making another man’s suffering serve his career. We favour *Sweet Smell of Success* for the exchanges between its two leads; *Ace in the Hole* suits an appetite for a more openly furious press drama, though its script sometimes makes greed explain too much. **Is Sweet Smell of Success based on a true story or a book?** *Sweet Smell of Success* is adapted from a novel by Ernest Lehman, who also writes the screenplay with Clifford Odets. We recommend approaching it without prior reading: the performances make the struggle for influence clear, and the pleasure lies in hearing how carefully these men choose their words to hurt or impress. **What should I watch after Sweet Smell of Success?** After *Sweet Smell of Success*, try [*Ace in the Hole*](https://film.one/film/ace-in-the-hole) (1951, Fi1m 87): Another press drama where ambition makes somebody else’s suffering seem useful. Then [*Broadcast News*](https://film.one/film/broadcast-news) (1987, Fi1m 84): A warmer examination of media ambition, with room for professional skill and conscience. ### Reviews we read (10) - **Empire**, Colin Kennedy (95/100, inferred): Kennedy regards the film as a cast-iron classic and one of Hollywood’s darkest works. He singles out its sharp dialogue, standout performances, and richly detailed photography and jazz score. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/sweet-smell-success-review/) - **The AV Club**, Noel Murray (A): Murray praises the film as an unusually thrilling, sharply observed portrait of media power. He singles out Lancaster and Curtis’s performances, along with the biting dialogue and James Wong Howe’s vivid city photography. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/sweet-smell-of-success-1798167371) - **The Guardian**, Philip French (95/100, inferred): French considers the film a masterpiece and an example of intelligent Hollywood cinema at its best. He particularly praises the crackling dialogue, alongside the performances and the film’s vivid vision of New York nightlife. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2001/sep/16/features.review) - **Slant Magazine**, Glenn Heath Jr. (4.5/5): The critic calls the film a virtuosic, intoxicating portrait of American power lust and praises Criterion’s essential Blu-ray release. He singles out James Wong Howe’s textured black-and-white cinematography and the transfer’s detail. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/sweet-smell-of-success/) - **Evening Standard** (75/100, inferred): The critic regards it as a bracing, still-great drama, though it was too dark for its time. He especially praises Lancaster and Curtis’s risky, vicious performances and the film’s nocturnal photography. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/sweet-smell-of-success-7434134.html) - **Time Out**, CA (65/100, inferred): The page is identified as a review, but the critic’s verdict is not visible. The available description notes Mackendrick’s association with British humour, but reveals no specific praise or complaint. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/sweet-smell-of-success) - **Variety**, Variety Staff (65/100, inferred): The review finds the film a compelling, no-holds-barred account, though it questions the clarity of the columnist’s devotion to his sister. It praises Burt Lancaster’s cunning performance and the production’s evocation of Broadway after dark. [Read](https://variety.com/1956/film/reviews/sweet-smell-of-success-2-1200418251/) - **RogerEbert.com** (64/100, inferred): The page could not be accessed, so its critical verdict is unavailable. No specific praise or complaint can be verified from the supplied content. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-sweet-smell-of-success-1957) - **The New Yorker**, John McCarten (64/100, inferred): The issue listing identifies a John McCarten review of the film, but the review text is not available here. Its verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be determined. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1957/07/06) - **The New York Times**, Bosley Crowther (20/100, inferred): Crowther’s verdict was strongly negative, finding the film’s outlook cynical and sordid. He objected to its portrayal of power and ambition as relentlessly corrupting. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/1957/06/28/archives/the-screen-sweet-smell-of-success-film-at-state-dissects-powermad.html) ## Details - **Director:** Alexander Mackendrick - **Director:** Alexander Mackendrick - **Screenplay:** Clifford Odets, Ernest Lehman - **Novel:** Ernest Lehman - **Cinematography:** James Wong Howe - **Editor:** Alan Crosland, Jr. - **Music:** Elmer Bernstein - **Costume design:** Mary Grant - **Producer:** James Hill - **Cast:** Burt Lancaster as J.J. Hunsecker; Tony Curtis as Sidney Falco; Susan Harrison as Susan Hunsecker; Martin Milner as Steve Dallas; Jeff Donnell as Sally; Sam Levene as Frank D' Angelo; Joe Frisco as Herbie Temple; Barbara Nichols as Rita - **Runtime:** 1h 37m - **Certificate (BBFC):** PG - **Release (the UK):** 4 July 1957 - **Genres:** Drama - **Budget:** $3 million - **Box office:** $2 million - **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBbPlyHxj8c ## Where to watch in the UK - Amazon Prime Video: rent £3.49, hd - Apple TV: rent £3.49, hd - Amazon Prime Video: buy £8.99, hd - Apple TV: buy £8.99, hd *Checked 2026-09-25.* Also available in: AE, AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HK, HU, ID, IE, IL, IN, IT, LT, MX, MY, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PH, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SG, TH, UA, US, VN, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## If you liked this - *Ace in the Hole* (1951), Fi1m 87: Another press drama where ambition makes somebody else’s suffering seem useful. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/ace-in-the-hole.md) - *The Servant* (1963): For another poisonous relationship sustained by watchfulness, dependency and carefully delivered humiliations. - *The Bad Sleep Well* (1960): Corporate respectability conceals vicious conduct, with patience that makes the cruelty worse. - *The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum* (1975): For a harsher look at what newspapers can do to private lives. - *Broadcast News* (1987), Fi1m 84: A warmer examination of media ambition, with room for professional skill and conscience. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/broadcast-news.md) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/sweet-smell-of-success