What a colossal bore.
Mr. Osborne, "nothing is at it seems?" What rubbish. The ONLY plot twist is that the Orson Welles character isn't dead.
Big deal...and the whole movie's central "plot" (if you can call it that) concerns black market penicillin? I've seen better "Mission: Impossible" TV episodes!!
Joseph Cotton is one overrated actor!
Best actor: Trevor Howard as Major Calloway
I wasn't crazy about it, either.
I loved it. Why? I do not know why. Is it the dreary atmosphere? Is it the lighting of the dark ruined city? Is it the suspense? Is it the camera work with the face closeups? Is it the music? There are so many unusual features to this film which vault it to the front of any classic film library.
Orson Welles has the tremendous acting skill of adding little nuances to a part to give Harry Lime a unique personality. Sucking on a heartburn pill, his eye movement or his expressions with his mouth. It all adds up to a dark foreboding post World War II piece.
I am sorry the previous posters did not like it, but I can understand why. Like all facets of art, some masterpieces are considered rubbish by others.
Just to clarify, I don't think the movie is rubbish--just overrated.
I just think Bob Osborne (TCM) got it wrong when he said "nothing is as it seems". That's an overstatement.
Movies where "nothing is as it seems" might be 'Mulholland Drive' or 'Memento'.
Obviously I'm no movie expert, but I can't help but feel 'The Third Man' is seriously overrated. But that doesn't mean I think it is a bad movie. Just overrated.
Sorry for the length, but...
...I would argue that, yes, nothing is as it seems...for Holly Martins. And seeing as he is the protagonist for most of the film, it's the same for us. Here we have a mystery where a storyteller finds himself with an opportunity to become the very kind of Hero he writes about, only to find himself disillusioned by a REAL moral dilemma, ineffectively finding out the true definition of a Hero.
You see, It isn't just that Harry is dead that's the twist, it's that Holly's friend is actually the very criminal he's believes him not to be. Holly is the protagonist and the only one who knew Harry before his evil turn in Vienna, in most stories he'd be right, his fight would be honorable. Harry would have been murdered and Holly would reveal the truth and save his friend's name. Just like one of his books. And as we go along for the ride, hopefully that's what you would want for Holly.
But then he hears the truth, and his image of Harry is shattered, then he hears the truth from him in a his very cold and uncaring fashion, and he finally realizes who the true villain is.
The whole movie Holly's been acting like he's this brooding american hero, defending truth and justice, but he instead finds out that to be the real Hero of this situation he has to inform on his friend. He's definition of the word hero has been distorted and reconstructed as something far more sinister and real and the decision he makes at the end of the film reveals his true character but the pains that come with such a title.
If you don't feel like the film properly used the camera or script to display Holly's slowly changing perception and character growth as he came to terms with this moral dilemma, that's absolutely what you took away from the film and that's cool. But for Holly, who started out seeing the world like one of his novels, and us viewers who saw this world through his journey, nothing really was as it seemed.
exactly, thanks
shareThis is Godard's Bou de souffle before Godard. That you can betray a criminal. That behind the truthful man is a man sick with life.
shareIt isn't just that Harry is dead that's the twist, it's that Holly's friend is actually the very criminal he's believes him not to be.
==============================================
And another thing.
Harry originally promised Holly a job, presumably a role in the racket. And Holly finally figured out Harry thought HOLLY was a sleezebag who would be won over by amoral speeches about people being dots and peace producing nothing but a cuckoo clock.
I loved it. Why? I do not know why. Is it the dreary atmosphere? Is it the lighting of the dark ruined city? Is it the suspense? Is it the camera work with the face closeups? Is it the music? There are so many unusual features to this film which vault it to the front of any classic film library.
Orson Welles has the tremendous acting skill of adding little nuances to a part to give Harry Lime a unique personality. Sucking on a heartburn pill, his eye movement or his expressions with his mouth. It all adds up to a dark foreboding post World War II piece...
Agree. Colossal bore.
shareI finished roughly at one hour mark, found it very boring. Rated it a 3/10 since I didn't watch it through and it might get a bit more interesting towards the end...
Overall a rather average film of it's time, but much more long-winded. Frankly I don't understand what other people see in this film, it's probably all about the reputation like with Citizen Kane. At least I had the guts to NOT watch this bore to the bitter end, I doubt it would have gotten much better. Rosebud. Nonsense.
Let's face it people, lots of noir was decent in it's own time but quite often time has passed by these films. It's interesting that if critics decided a film being great several decades ago... they still hold the same status. And no, I didn't notice anything exceptional with cinematography either.
I think some people don't understand Graham Greene protagonists. There are no "heroes" in Greeneland. That makes them tough to understand which upsets some who want clear cut characters who can wrap up all the issues neatly.
shareYour inability to finish the film renders any criticism or judgement you have of it nil. Absolutely ridiculous. You also have a terrible eye for photography.
shareI dunno about that...think you CAN judge a film based on a brief watch (at least half). I almost did the same thing, but did manage to finish it. It does rapidly pick up after the first hour...some of this could have been shaved off, quite frankly. Didn't find this as alluring as CK or other Noir; ending was wonderful and the moment that Harry shows up out of nowhere, was jaw-dropping.
But in all, it was a touch weaker than I expected. Hoped for more. Will re-watch sometime, and perhaps "get it" then.
"You know it..." Snake Karate Kid III
I agree with Underhill. Why give it a rating if you haven't watched the movie?
I finished roughly at one hour mark, found it very boring. Rated it a 3/10 since I didn't watch it through and it might get a bit more interesting towards the end...Ya think? If you haven't finished it... don't vote.
a think? If you haven't finished it... don't vote.
But having seen thousands of films you just sometimes know it's not going to get better...That happens, I'm sure. My point is that your reviews are not valid. Not unlike those people who give a movie a 1 for no other reason other than because they don't agree with its rating and feel it's their mission in life to balance out the wrong.
I rate films for myself. If I haven't rated it there would be a chance I might forget I watched it and try to watch it again.
I used to take rating a film very seriously and still do to some extent... for example my ratings have nearly Gaussian distribution which certainly can not be said of most around here - so I don't just throw ratings around. But one hour is certainly long enough for me to tell that I do not like the film at all and rate it accordingly.
If you rate the films for some other purpose than for yourself I think you're on a wrong track... on a site that ranks Dark Knight as all time 4th and such complete rubbish as 2014 Godzilla as 6,7...
Maybe you should go the site "I watch rubbish to the bitter end dot com"... just a thought.
And in general I think many old classics are overrated; they have gotten a reputation but it doesn't match the modern standards. The reputation stuck while the film got outdated. Not all but many. I find this especially true for many films made in 30s and 40s.
If it makes you any happier, I now watched the last 45 minutes of the film. And liked it a lot.
I have to say that it was very good. Great atmospheric cinematography and the story got some momentum as well.
I'm not sure if I'd still like the first half, although I have seen a bit film noir since last try and learned to appreciate it more. Also became to like Valli a lot, especially in "The Paradine Case" - and Cotten isn't that bad in "Shadow of a doubt" either.
If it makes you any happier, I now watched the last 45 minutes of the film. And liked it a lot.Not that it matters, but yes, I am happier. I'm glad you liked it.
You found "Citizen Kane" to be average and claim it depends mostly upon "the reputations." You're also dismissing the entire genre of the film noir as they usually don't "age well". Then what other movies do you like from the periods (the 40's and 50's)?
Sorry this old movie doesn't live up to the visual effects of other old movies like "Jaws" or "Star Wars". You might think these "old" movies are all from around the same time but not really.
This film is not even in the category of the "film noir" but to you, you probably can't make a distinction from one black&white film to others.
Oh, you probably do like the soppy "It's a Wonderful Life" and the glitzy "Ben Hur" & "Gone With the Wind" from that period, but what else?
[deleted]
My favorite film. The cinematography is exciting, Valli is gorgeous, the setting is wonderful, and the acting and script superb. Easily Carol Reed's best direction. The final scene is spectacular. I even love the weird music.
share[deleted]
The first half of the film I thought this isn't that great. Joseph Cotton was so bland and the story wasn't that great. Then Orson Welles appeared and straight away the film improved. Every scene after that famous appearance with the cat at his feet was enhanced by his presence. That's why I give it 8/10 after first viewing.
shareThat was worthless.
shareThis is why we should not let 12 year old children on the internet to review classic cinema.
Your post is probably one of the most pointless of all time and was a colossal bore to read.
~ That's much too vulgar a display of power, Karras.
It's true that many classic films of the 1930s and '40s have dated badly.
Not this one, though.
I just saw the restored version and was marveling how contemporary it seemed.