Trois troupiers

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.