Critical
The Monthly Film Bulletin wrote: "The photography is good, and the sets are so realistic that one can almost smell the school atmosphere, and it is difficult to believe that Saintbury does not really exist. Besides this, the acting is of a high standard; if Richard Attenborough, as the guinea pig, does not look quite as young as they would have us believe, it is doubtful if anyone of the right age, even if available, could have improved on his moments of half boastful, half pathetic youth. There is a competent performance 'rom Robert Flemyng as a young master; he appears to be thoroughly at home in his part. Altogether Roy Boulting has directed a very satisfying ninety-seven minutes' entertainment." [11]
The New York Times critic Bosley Crowther, at the time of the film's first American release, was unimpressed. According to Crowther, "the details are highly parochial, the attitudes of the characters are strangely stiff, the accents and idioms are hard to fathom—and the exposition is involved and tedious". [12]
The Radio Times Guide to Films gave the film 2/5 stars, writing: "Richard Attenborough makes light of his 20-odd years to play a boy half his age in this class-barrier melodrama. ... Wallowing in the clichés of establishment privilege, director Roy Boulting makes few demands of a cast that almost sleepwalks through familiar characterisations. [13]
In British Sound Films: The Studio Years 1928–1959 David Quinlan rated the film as "good", writing: "Skilful human dialogue made this film a big popular success." [14]
A reviewer for Time Out called it, "solid entertainment, even if barely convincing". [15]
The film was controversial at the time of its first release, as it contains the first screen use of the word "arse". [16]
