Just finished watching
The Third Man
. I have seen it several times.
I think it is a pretty outstanding movie and would rate it 9 out of 10.
Joseph Cotton is really good in his role, and I like Trevor Howard in his role also.

Best actor is Trevor Howard? LOL He is fine in the role but clearly Orson Welles delivers the best performance.

I like the film because the "hero" of the film (which I suppose would be Holly Martins) is a sad sack and a loser.
He is by no means a heroic-type individual, and he is in fact not very likable. I should clarify there is nothing "bad" about him, but he's just so "blah"
and that's what makes the film so good. Holly sees himself as the heroic figure who sets out to do heroic things in trying to help Anna and attempting to talk some morals into Harry, but he isn't that hero he things he is. He likens himself to one of his dime-store novel characters he writes about in his not-so-great books, even thinking at the end that he will "get the girl" (because the hero always does).
Heck, one could argue that the most likable character in the film was Harry Lime and he was responsible for the deaths of little children. But again, that was all intentional. Harry Lime was SUPPOSED to be a likable kind of chap someone with whom you'd like to share a drink and a cigar and some stories.
That was something very very unheard of in films up until that time. In that way, this was one of the first modern dramas that most other modern "antihero" dramas have followed.

This is a shell with only a few interesting shadows.
Alfred Hitchcock has done much better in his early silent movies, in a much more subtle way.
Nothing to save here.

I think it's an excellent film. I watched it just before I was in Vienna in 2013 and then again when I returned home. Great movie!
Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar, and / or doesn't.

I have now seen Laura, The Maltese Falcon and The Third Man, and I have yet to be impressed. They're not a colossal bore, but I just find them average. These movies are supposed to be thrillers and I'm simply not thrilled. The stories just aren't engaging enough for me. So, after three attempts at 40s noir, I give up. I'll go watch Dial M For Murder and Read Window again instead. Now that's how you do edge-of-the-seat thrillers.

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.

This 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.

That was worthless.

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.

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.

This message has been deleted.

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?

This message has been deleted.

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.
I would've been embarrassed if your initial impression was proved correct!

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.

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.

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.
Isn't there another site that caters for your types of review? haven'tseenit.com? Something like that, anyway.

a think? If you haven't finished it don't vote.
I hardly ever vote without watching the whole film
But having seen thousands of films you just sometimes know it's not going to get better or at least the odds are negligible. One hour is certainly enough for that. Even if it does get better the film HAS failed if you're bored to pieces at one hour mark.
Yesterday I watched a bad film to the very end Godzilla 2014. It was not worth it. If you don't believe me go ahead and try it yourself
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0805723/ratings

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.
Fine, why not come onto the discussion board and tell us you couldn't focus long enough to last the final 30 minutes So close!! But no cigar
But then to give the movie a rating? I'm speechless. I am literally without speech.

I dunno about thatthink 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 hoursome 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

Your 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.

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.

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
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.