User reviews

Other posters complained that in Soldiers Three Granger imitates Cary Grant in Gunga Din. I'm a fan of Gunga Din but hadn't really thought of comparing the actors as I watched Soldiers Three. Instead I found myself admiring, and frequently amused by, Granger's comic abilities--of which he showed flashes in other movies but of course he was better known as a romantic swashbuckler or, later, a western hero comfortable with the ladies.

Another complaint is that the film is a Hollywood potboiler, but what's surprising is how much British comic style survives in this production from the West Coast of North America. The comic pace may seem "lazy," but it's familiar even now in the Brit-coms that play Saturday nights on PBS. Granger's timing and interplay with Sykes and Cusack are admittedly unspectacular but nonetheless well-practiced in technique and pleasantly warm with human feeling.

As a final recommendation, the story, characters, and dialogue may be closer to authentic Kipling than Gunga Din, whose screenplay was a free expansion of a not-very-long poem that contributes little to the film with the same title. Long ago I read Kipling's Plain Tales from the Hills partly about English servicemen in India and introducing the characters of Soldiers Three. I think there were later stories collected under the title Soldiers Three. Anyway the plain and humane style remind me of those early stories by Kipling, which gambol between stereotypes and humanity. Kipling's Anglo-Indian writings benefit from his youth and early journalistic career primarily in what is now Pakistan. The film of Soldiers Three seems true to this author's spirit.

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.

Soldiers Three is a harmless comedy about three british soldiers serving in India (played by Stewart Granger, Robert Newton and Cyril Cusack). The three are great friends after spending 18 years in the army together. Now the colonel (Walter Pidgeon) has had enough of the unruly fellow, and wants to separate them by making one of them (Granger) a sergeant. Of course, sergeants and soldiers cant get along with each other so Granger tries to get degraded to a soldier again...

Gargantuan thrill ride it ain't, you might think. Indeed its nothing special or exciting. Its merely a standard Hollywood studio film of its day, but of course, the standard Hollywood films in 1951 were much more enjoyable than now 50 years later. (at least in my opinion) So this might be worth your time on a lazy tuesday afternoon (If you are not working), just to see a few likable actors like Stewart Granger and David Niven (playing a british officer, a role he fits more than well)

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 Brazil yet...

Resume:

First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD-R / Rating: 7

Retired British general Brunswick (Walter Pidgeon) recounts his days in colonial India. He assigns his success due to his three most unruly soldiers, privates Archibald Ackroyd, Bill Sykes, and Dennis Malloy led by Capt. Pindenny (David Niven).

It's trying to be a comedy but I don't think it's that funny. It's a rambling dramedy for about an hour and then there is some action. For some reason, way too many men get trapped in a way too small bunker. It should be easy work to smoke them out. It's fine. I'm not really rooting for the British Imperials. It's passable.

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.

Others have said this has similarities to Gunga Din, which isn't surprising, since they were both by Rudyard Kipling. Always stories of adventures in far off exotic lands. This one opens with General Brunswick (Walter Pidgeon) reminiscing about his days as a colonel. Due to his height and stately voice, he was always given the role of admiral, senator, or grandfather. His soldiers are played by David Niven, Stewart Granger, Robert Newton, and Cyril Cusack. Niven received an Oscar for "Separate Tables", but is probably best known for "Around the World in Eighty Days" or "Pink Panther". We tag along as they have their trials and tribulations, fights, and comical adventures during their military maneuvers. Pretty light fare, and certainly not the epic that Gunga Din turned out to be. All in good fun, but mostly silly, unlikely adventures. Filming locations show Utah and California. Strong performances by Pidgeon and Niven, but the story isn't one of his best. Story has no plot holes, it just kind of plods along, and we get to the end. If you're looking for a good R Kipling story to watch, see "Gunga Din" instead- that one has Cary Grant!

Soldiers Three is a 1951 black and white war drama that is a pale imitation of Gunga Din (1939). How on earth you could try to re-make Gunga Din is questionable enough, but consider that producer Pandro Berman worked on the original. What was he thinking?

Stewart Granger, David Niven, Cyril Cusack and Robert Newton star, but none of them come anywhere near the talent on display by Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., and Sam Jaffe.

Granger made far better films (King Solomon's Mines, Scaramouche) as did Newton (my favorite Long John Silver), and of course Niven who won Oscars and Golden Globes for many memorable performances.

Here is a film that should be avoided.

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.

This version of the Kipling tale is much more slapstick and parodical in its delivery. Granger seems to be trying awfully hard to be funny because it's not natural for him but I will say it seems like the entire cast seemed to be having a great time and I'd guess a lot of alcoholic beverages were consumed off set. Robert Newton is genuinely funny as a bumbling oaf who says "Argh" more than any pirate in this role as a British colonial soldier whereby in one scene they look more like hotel bellhops than soldiers. Also I wonder what was the audience reaction to these shirtless men who don't look like soldiers wading through a river it was a comical sight. Walter Pidgeon and David Niven were a wonderful pair in this film I enjoyed their banter and performances with Niven giving the best all around performance. It is fun to watch actors enjoying their jobs even if the script material is subpar. Cheers.

"Soldiers Three" is a great example of the sort of pro-British colonialism that was popular in American films of the 1930s-50s. I really have no idea WHY the films of the USA so strongly supported the British in these stories....and when I see many of them today, I find myself rooting for the 'bad guys'...folks who are fighting for freedom and independence from the Crown!

In this rather inconsequential film, the writers seem to be trying to re-create the magic from RKO's "Gunga Din"...and the story is very similar. Like "Din", this one features three irrepressible and irresponsible enlisted men who manage to rise to the occasion when the chips are down.

This film seems to scream 'time passer'....with a lot of plot holes, one-dimensional characters and a sense of fun. Not one of MGM's better films...but enjoyable in a mindless sort of way.

Made up in gray hair and deep-throated chuckles, the young leads of Soldiers Three start the movie off in a bar reminiscing about their good old times in the Army. Cue a giant flashback. All of a sudden, Stewart Granger, Walter Pidgeon, and Cyril Cusack are young again, soldiers in British occupied India. They're far more interested in getting drunk and stirring up trouble with their pals David Niven and Robert Newton than being taken seriously as soldiers, so when Pidge gets promoted and has to, in turn, promote one of the others to take over, the fun's over. Since it's clearly Stewart Granger's movie (much to my disappointment, since I was only watching it for David Niven), it's no surprise that he gets the promotion.

I've seen many, many war movies in my time, and even though I liked three actors in the supporting cast, I really didn't like it. I always considered Stewart Granger's career superfluous, when David Niven could have made any of his movies. And it doesn't seem to make sense when the group of three rambunctious English soldiers pick a bar fight with a group of Scottish soldiers on the sole basis that their kilts look silly, when another man in their regiment is The Niv, a Scot himself! While I fully admit it's hard to make a war movie a comedy, this one doesn't hit the mark.