What a colossal bore.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Third Man
nyctc7 — 12 years ago(January 06, 2014 08:36 PM)
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 dealand 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 -
ggilles104 — 12 years ago(January 07, 2014 12:16 PM)
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. -
nyctc7 — 12 years ago(January 07, 2014 03:35 PM)
Just to clarify, I don't think the movie is rubbishjust 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. -
robl0051 — 12 years ago(January 08, 2014 05:50 PM)
Sorry for the length, but
I would argue that, yes, nothing is as it seemsfor 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. -
CharlesTheBold — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 08:34 PM)
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.
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. -
Jamesir_Bensonmum — 12 years ago(March 24, 2014 06:36 AM)
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
As I mentioned before, I think the film is great because of the way it presented the "bad guy", Harry Lime, to be a charmingly likable person with a twinkle in his eye and a spring in his step, while the "good guy" (or simply the protagonist), Holly Martins, was portrayed as an sad-sack loser and a sap.
The villain had an extremely likable personality while the good guy was unlikable. Movies never did this prior to this film; this was a groundbreaking film that ushered in the "Modern Drama", a drama that does not rely on the old-fashioned ideas of "ultra-heroic good guy versus sinister villain.
Sure Harry Lime was sinister, but he was outwardly charming. Holly Martins did "save the day", but he is a loser with a sad-sack personality that drives people away.
THAT'S what makes this film special. -
The_TJT — 12 years ago(February 09, 2014 03:43 PM)
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. -
NewtonFigg — 12 years ago(February 11, 2014 05:18 PM)
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.
-
romefan123 — 11 years ago(February 20, 2015 09:41 AM)
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 -
pjmcgill142 — 11 years ago(October 10, 2014 03:23 AM)
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. -
The_TJT — 11 years ago(October 10, 2014 11:51 AM)
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 -
pjmcgill142 — 11 years ago(October 10, 2014 04:02 PM)
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. -
The_TJT — 11 years ago(October 10, 2014 05:08 PM)
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.