Soldiers Three

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.

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!

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.

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.