Trois troupiers

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.

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 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)

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 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.