Soldiers Three (1951)

To me, this movie is perfection.

hyped garbage

Absolutely Brilliant!

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Through the time appears some war comedy like that,it's very unusual and quite often rare movie,it's very amusing production because it remove from the war all kind of suffering and madness and replacing for laughs an good humor,MGM wisely brings to Hollywood five top billing casting from England to make a priceless and remarkable comedy,light and easy and delightful entertainment for everyone,this title as far l know it wasn't have an official release in Brasil yet...Resume:First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD-R / Rating: 7

Based on another Rudyard Kipling story, the parallels between this and the better known Gunga Din film are too obvious to ignore. Once again Kipling has three protagonists soldiers as heroes who are three of the most undisciplined soldiers in the Indian army. But are three of the best fighters. Unlike Gunga Din where the heroes are sergeants, these three guys are from the ranks and have been there for many years.Stewart Granger, Cyril Cusack, and Robert Newton are our three privates and they get into all kinds of jackpots. Their colonel is Walter Pidgeon and this whole film is a flashback offered at a club by retired General Pidgeon. After one incident too many he and his adjutant David Niven have the idea to promote one of them to break up the team. It works to some degree.But when Cusack and Newton and many more of their comrades get into a nasty jackpot trying to capture a rebel tribe leader the old team comes together. In fact the rescue of the group by Granger bears a lot of similarity to the climax of Gunga Din. Only this one is played for far more laughs. This military comedy cried for the rough house traditions set by John Ford. Although director Tay Garnett did any number of good action films, the whole military tradition and the comedy would have really been perfected had Ford been at the helm. Irishman Ford did quite well with the British army in India with Wee Willie Winkie.Still Soldiers Three is worthwhile if you're a fan of the three leads.

This lifeless adventure yarn featuring three veteran privates still suspended in adolescence doesn't have enough energy to get through the first reel. It's a second string Gunga Din that should have never been allowed off the bench.Ackroyd, Sykes, and Malloy have spent most of their adult life as privates keeping the sun up for the Empire. Prone to mischief their frustrated commander (Walter Pidgeon) decides to break the boys up; not by court martial but instead by promoting one to the responsible rank of sergeant. Sulking like schoolboys it fractures the friendship until the mates are in harms way.It's hard to believe director Tay Garnett yelled action in Soldiers Three because the little there is of it is abysmal. The editing is choppy, the battle scenes poorly choreographed with Garnet in some instances having his cast point and fire guns that don't discharge. The three underachieving lifers played by Stewart Granger with a poor Irish accent, Cyril Cusack's rancid pixie and the painful to watch visibly dissipating Robert Newton mooing like a cow and "Ar'ing like Long John Silver lack both chemistry and energy to summon up laughter or excitement. Pidgeon's blustery incoherent commander is no improvement while David Niven and Robert Coote are only required to display stiff upper lips. Void of both action and humor Soldiers Three is strictly third rate.

The cast tries hard to make a go of this entry into the British Raj in India genre, a genre which is still far and away dominated by RKO's Gunga Din released in 1939. Mostly it's a futile effort. The film comes up short on many levels. The screenplay isn't in the same league as the RKO classic and Stewart Granger, Robert Newton and Cyril Cusack are a pale shadow of Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. Granger forces the issue constantly, trying to ape Cary Grant's performance in Gunga Din and it comes off primarily grating though he does have a few amusing moments.The humor between the three is passable enough but Newton and Cusack just don't offer much chemistry or star power, and the script rarely gives them anything to do but banter at Granger and each other and down pints. David Niven, wasted in the role of a superior officer, would have been way better served to have been cast as one of the threesome instead of Cusack. Walter Pigeon, too, gives one of his clunkiest performances as the Colonel, much consternated British bluster is attempted but fails to be very humorous or believable.The best sequence in the film is the brawl in the tavern with the Scottish soldiers, which is very much reminiscent of Gunga Din's opening, and the battle at the end is well staged and action packed, it just takes about 70 mostly wasted minutes to get there.Overall the picture is not unentertaining, it has its moments but it's barely half the adventure masterpiece Gunga Din is.