View Full Version : The Third Man disappointing
Panavision
20-01-2002, 11:42
Watched it recently, I was expecting much more, the film didn't punch me. I'm really disappointed, being a moderate Welles fan, this film didn't do much until the last 30 minutes. Everything was perfect except the story and intrigue.
I'll probably re-visit in 12 months time.
Now, Touch of Evil on the other hand is fantastic.
Thoughts and comments?
jonathan.e
20-01-2002, 11:59
Sorry, The Third Man is beyond criticism being a simply "perfect" movie. Admirers of this are also advised to check out Reed’s Odd Man Out starring James Mason which shares some of the same themes as The Third Man.
I have to agree with Jonathan E. Not only is it one of the relatively few "classic" films to actually deserve its reputation, it's also quite beautifully made by Carol Reed - a director whose reputation rests on about six great movies, but who comes through here with a film that is perfectly paced, genuinely thought-provoking, exciting and witty. Several scenes - the opening montage, Harry Lime's first appearance, the ferris wheel, the deeply moving ending (so good, Altman nicked it for his own film noir) - are so good that everybody who claims to like films at all should know them off by heart.
As for Welles, this is the film he could have made if he had been less profligate and more focused after his run-in with RKO over "Ambersons". He's fabulous in "The Third Man" but the film would still be a classic without him. It's not hard to imagine Alec Guinness doing just as well in the role.
I second the recommendation for "Odd Man Out". Also from Reed's classic list - "Outcast Of The Islands", "The Fallen Idol", "Our Man In Havana", "The Way Ahead" and the now ridiculously underrated "Oliver !"
Panavision
20-01-2002, 15:00
I can't deny its visual quality, it was exquisite and mindblowing, but the story didn't do much for me. I'll watch it again, it deserves a 2nd chance.
Welles is fantastic and you can always rely on Trevor Howard!!!
Foxy Slamdangle
20-01-2002, 16:40
Are you the same bloke that reviews movies for Channel 4 text? :)
On their DVD review pages this week (page 414 if anyone's interested), the Third Man scores 2/5, brands Carol Reed as 'weedy', Joseph Cotten as 'uncharismatic' and the zither theme as 'annoying'. The review also neglects to mention <I>anything</I> about the DVD iteself.
I wouldn't even expect that of Empire FFS. A truly classic movie.
<B>Edit</B>: Found the online review <A HREF="http://www.teletext.co.uk/Bigscreen/reviews.asp?intarticleid=45478&intsubsectionid=14">here</A>
kerbcrawler
21-01-2002, 13:30
Sorry Panavision but I too would agreee that this is a true masterpiece, but can anyone tell me if the UK R2 is the same as the Criterion edition?
jonathan.e
21-01-2002, 13:33
Originally posted by Foxy Slamdangle
<B>Edit</B>: Found the online review <A HREF="http://www.teletext.co.uk/Bigscreen/reviews.asp?intarticleid=45478&intsubsectionid=14">here</A>
I'm going to be mercilessly ridiculed by proper movie critics for this, but here goes anyway: I hate The Third Man.]
Still, at least he realises he’s just an ill-informed hack.
DavidMcGowan
21-01-2002, 13:39
Originally posted by kerbcrawler
Sorry Panavision but I too would agreee that this is a true masterpiece, but can anyone tell me if the UK R2 is the same as the Criterion edition?
Having glanced at the specifications of the R2 disc in Woolworths, I didn't notice anything missing from the Criterion disc, except it appears that there are no subtitles included on the UK edition.
EDIT: It seems that I was wrong - the R2 drops the intro from Peter Bogdanovich as well as the abridged version of Graham Greene's original novel - neither of which made a huge impression upon me, which is why I forgot them. :) But it seems the picture and sound quality is superior on the Criterion, so that's definitely the one to go for.
Anyway, don't take my word for it - the two reviews are available on DVD Times now.
Originally posted by jonathan.e
I'm going to be mercilessly ridiculed by proper movie critics for this, but here goes anyway: I hate The Third Man.]
Still, at least he realises he’s just an ill-informed hack.
I never realised the guy wasn't entitled to his opinion, afterall not everyone is going to love this 'wonderful' movie :rolleyes:
jonathan.e
21-01-2002, 13:58
Teletext reviewers gave Rat Race 3 stars and The Third Man 2 stars! Seems to be the site to frequent if you suffer from cinematic myopia resulting in an inability to see further back than 5 years.
DavidMcGowan
21-01-2002, 13:59
Originally posted by jonathan.e
I'm going to be mercilessly ridiculed by proper movie critics for this, but here goes anyway: I hate The Third Man.]
Still, at least he realises he’s just an ill-informed hack.
I was going to post this review myself, but got beaten to it. I can't believe that C4 would pay someone to write reviews like this. In all fairness, it's difficult to make hugely insightful criticism in such a small amount of space and yet the whole review sounds like mindless padding. For the most part, Teletext Cinema writes in a tone that suggests that they want to be taken seriously and yet few of their reviews seem to rise above this quality - even C4's own Digitiser, which takes a more intentionally sarcastic view at least manages to provide a reasonably balanced overview of the product they are reviewing at times.
Dismissing one of the most celebrated build-ups to a character's entrance by over-exaggarating "the five minutes when Orson Welles is actually on screen" is particularly annoying.
That said, it's a perfectly reasonable response for the reviewer not to like it, and at least he has stated this rather than merely following the praise of all the other critics (even though I a agree with them). However, merely stating that "I hate the Third Man" and (rather crudely for a supposedly professional film reviewer) "the rest just bores the nipples off me" without any attempt to justify this just makes him appear to be a critic who is out of his depth. I'd hate to think that some people wouldn't give this film a chance as a result of that review.. and I doubt we'll be seeing Mr. Paul Arendt reviewing for Sight and Sound anytime in the near future. :)
"Was there ever a weedier director than Carol Reed?" ... I hope he doesn't get the job of reviewing the Woody Allen video releases in the next few weeks...
KeyserSoze
21-01-2002, 14:02
i regret to say i missed the last part (need VCR in uni !!).
can someone tell me (with spoiler tags of course) what happened after welles' first appearence ?
Originally posted by Foxy Slamdangle
and the zither theme as 'annoying'.
I'd agree with that comment. As for the film itself, I enjoyed it a lot. As described by many, it is indeed visually spectacular, although I do object to when people say things like:
Originally posted by Mike
Several scenes .... are so good that everybody who claims to like films at all should know them off by heart.
What a ridiculous thing to say!
Kevin Harper
21-01-2002, 14:53
Everyone is entitled to their opinion butI doubt there are few people with any serious interest in cinema that would dispute that The Third Man is among the greatest films ever made. It frequently appears in many listings as a true classic of the British Cinema - even the American Film Institute included it in their top 100 (no 57) not bad for a British Film.
No doubt there will be a load of replies denying the fact it is a British Film....take a look here if you need more info
http://us.imdb.com/Companies?0041959
Cap'n Al
21-01-2002, 16:02
The first appearance of Orson Welles might well be the single greatest moment in post-war British cinema, less so for the scene's narrative relevance or even for the appearance of Welles (who is just about perfect in the part, and brings a strangely seductive quality to Lime it's impossible to imagine Alec Guinness or Noel Coward possessing), but just for the sheer cinematic effect; in its own way, it's as striking as anything else in Welles' work, or anyone else's for that matter.
(Oh, and the rest of the film's a masterpiece as well.)
John Hodson
21-01-2002, 21:33
As they say, it's just one of those films where everything came together; it's about as flawless a piece of cinema as I have ever seen, or am ever likely to; music, script, direction, cinematography, performances, all right on the money. Bliss.
Welles dominates though he's hardly on camera, and every single damned time I watch it, the moment he makes his first appearance, the hairs stand up on the back of my neck.
Having said that, my wife thought it 'boring'. Different strokes.
British cinema; we don't get it right that often (particularly in recent years), but when we do...
---
So many films, so little time...
Myself and Jon Robertson have reviewed The Third Man across both the R2 and Criterion Versions. Click on the links for the reviews.
R2:
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=Review&id=556&story=2657
Criterion
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=Review&id=555&story=2656
And, for once, two DVD Times reviews are in complete agreement over the film!
:clap:
samuelowens
21-01-2002, 23:34
This is such a great film that captures the mood of occupied Vienna and the onset of the Cold War so brilliantly, and the Criterion DVD is a showcase for how well old movies can be presented. It simply staggers me that the troglodytes at C4 could rate it lower than Rat Race.
<b>I'd agree with that comment. As for the film itself, I enjoyed it a lot. As described by many, it is indeed visually spectacular, although I do object to when people say things like:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mike
Several scenes .... are so good that everybody who claims to like films at all should know them off by heart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a ridiculous thing to say!</b>
Why ? I would say the same about scenes in "The Searchers", "Citizen Kane" and "Eight and a Half" and several hundred other films. If you like films - I don't mean just as entertainment but as serious works of art (very unfashionable these days I know) - then you should get a context from which to express your opinions. I don't doubt that I have lots of things to learn about film - especially in the last ten years or so when I've lost interest in current cinema - just as much as everyone else. But at least I'm willing to learn.
As for the content of the opinion, I stand by it. No-one would be able to seriously disagree if I said that anyone who claims to like English Literature should have read - or be planning to read - Shakespeare, Donne, Marlowe and Spenser and also have a solid knowledge of Virgil and Ovid among other Classical authors. Why should film be any different ? Why should we have respect for lack of knowledge when it's so eagerly paraded ?
Anyone who reckons they "like" cinema should at least be able to appreciate why <b>The Third Man</b> is a great piece of film making, even if they don't much like the film themselves, and if they haven't seen it, their cinematic education is incomplete. The standard of cine-literacy in this country is pretty appalling in my opinion. There are some films which should be seen by everybody who "likes" cinema and this is one of them - for the mise-en-scene, the writing, the photography and the acting among other things. I think one should have the knowledge to compare Robert Krasker to Guy Green, consider why Carol Reed flourished when Robert Hamer didn't, examine the film in the context of post-war British cinema. The image of Orson Welles coming out of the shadows in high contrast should be embedded in the mind of every film lover as far as I'm concerned, just like the closing scene of "The Searchers" and the first image of Death in "The Seventh Seal".
Basically, the learning never stops. Everyone has an opinion but not everyone has an informed opinion and its those which are interesting to read. The reason why there are some people on this forum who are worth paying attention to is that they know what they are talking about and they never retreat into the old "it's only my opinion" argument which is so tedious and generally used to hide ignorance. If they don't know they say so. If they have an opinion it's forthright and not moderated by undue modesty. I don't always agree with the likes of Michael Brooke, Gary Couzens or Jonathan E. but I have the utmost respect for what they have to say. Too many people here are eager to use the word "boring" to cover a multitude of misunderstandings and misinterpretations, nor do they ever qualify "boring" with an explanation. Of course a film is boring if you can't adapt to the different pacing, different acting style or unusual narrative style. When I was a teenager I was watching every film that came on television, I was eager for film, any film, and I never wanted to stop learning. I still am as I get into middle age and I hope I never change. I love films as much as anything else in life - bad marriages can do that to you - and maybe more than anything else. I don't think I have ever seen a film which was just boring. Dull maybe, repetitive, badly acted, unimaginatively scripted, indifferently photographed, but never merely boring. How can those pictures flickering past you be boring ? God knows, I've wanted to kick the screen in sometimes, usually while trying to like Cassavettes films, but even that feeling of disliking something can be stimulating, make you want to argue against the people who claim these films are great. But to do that you have to have knowledge and even while I despised "Faces" intensely I still have the image of the stud laughing hysterically when the suicide first wakes in my head. So it was worthwhile.
But, alas, taking films, especially mainstream American films, seriously is now very rare. Knowledge of film history is at an all time low. Everyone knows who John Woo is but how many forum members can name from memory three films directed by Allan Dwan ? Explain who Billy Bitzer was and why he was so important. Knowledge of classic American cinema is dying out it seems to me because the interest isn't there. My life-long passion has been for Westerns of all shapes and sizes. There's not a single film to have been released in the last three years to match the thrill of the nth viewing of "The Wild Bunch". I'm clearly in the minority. Foreign and independent cinema are the current idols. I loved watching "In The Mood For Love" but the result of watching it was a slightly guilty feeling that I'd have had an even better time if I'd watched "Loving" again instead. Maybe it's inevitable but it's rather sad that Martin Scorsese and Peter Bogdanovich's efforts over the last few years to resurrect the reputations of the great Hollywood directors have had so little effect. Sad for me, but not for others I accept. I am deeply ignorant of non-English language cinema, especially recently, but I am not proud of it and I don't consider myself to have the right to post opinions about topics upon which I am not informed.
I wouldn't normally bother to post in so much detail any more - it's a losing battle against ignorance and I'm not sure that my age and vanity are being tempered by tolerance any more - but due to work and other commitments which will limit my online time I am leaving the forums and I wanted to express how I feel. I will still be reviewing for DVD Times though, so if anyone still has any interest in what I have to say after this immoderate rant, then I hope you will enjoy my reviews. It's nice, for once, not to leave in anger.
Be good and watch some great movies. You can start with "The Wild Bunch" and see where you go from there.
jonathan.e
22-01-2002, 09:07
Well, if that isn’t one of the best posts I’ve read I don’t know what is.
Sorry to see you’ll not be posting anymore Mike but it’s good to know you’ll still be writing for DVDTimes. Too much film writing, on-line and in print, these days is either pandering to the studios marketing depts or in thrall to the Hollywood blockbuster so it’s reassuring to know that reviewers with a genuine passion, knowledge and love for the medium, regardless of subject or year, are still around.
Good luck to you.
Mike,
Sorry to slightly hijack this thread for a minute, but as the resident 'Wild Bunch' fan, can you mention which version to look at please? I do want to check this movie out (I feel like I should!), but don't want to end up with a duff release - is there a fairly decent release out there?
Sorry, I know you've mentioned this before, but I can't find anything and I think it was a while back!!
Ta!
Kevin Harper
22-01-2002, 10:58
Originally posted by mjb1975
Mike,
Sorry to slightly hijack this thread for a minute, but as the resident 'Wild Bunch' fan, can you mention which version to look at please? I do want to check this movie out (I feel like I should!), but don't want to end up with a duff release - is there a fairly decent release out there?
Sorry, I know you've mentioned this before, but I can't find anything and I think it was a while back!!
Ta!
At the present time the R2 version appears to be the best - the only downside is it is a flipper (quite and old disc). To it's credit it is a decent anamorphic print and contains the excellent mini documentary An Album in Montage. It can be picked up fairly cheap and will do until something better somes along.
Panavision
22-01-2002, 11:20
Let me reiterate, The Third Man is visually stunning, the acting is tremendous, but the story didn't punch me. I must be jaded :(
I'll be watching again soon to make sure.
I watch everything, my film taste is quite broad.
Tristan H
22-01-2002, 11:24
Mike, you don't need to leave just because somebody disagrees with you. For those of us who do view film as a form of art, you are the most interesting poster on these forums along with Michael Brooke and a few others. I hope you're not serious....
Originally posted by Mike
Why ? I would say the same about scenes in "The Searchers", "Citizen Kane" and "Eight and a Half" and several hundred other films. If you like films - I don't mean just as entertainment but as serious works of art (very unfashionable these days I know) - then you should get a context from which to express your opinions. I don't doubt that I have lots of things to learn about film - especially in the last ten years or so when I've lost interest in current cinema - just as much as everyone else. But at least I'm willing to learn.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. When you said 'anyone who likes films', I took you literally, and it sounded a bit over the top. Now that you have clarified your statement by saying 'I don't mean just as entertainment but as serious works of art' I agree completely. I apologise for any offence I may have caused.
I admit I am still very new to cinema, which is why I am making the point of learning about cinema as an art-form, by watching Films such as Citizen Kane, The Third Man etc, and am trying to understand why such films are so highly regarded. I do enjoy reading comments such as yours, Michael Brooke and others on these forums and elsewhere who have a much greater knowledge and understanding of cinema than I could ever hope to have.
To repeat, I am sincerely sorry if I took your comments the wrong way, and I hope I haven't really prompted you to leave the forums.
Phil.
Panavision
22-01-2002, 13:14
Don't leave, Mike!!!
AndyWilson
22-01-2002, 13:54
EXITS STAGE LEFT - ZITHER THEME FADES AS CREDITS ROLL?
Have fun Mike...
Foxy Slamdangle
22-01-2002, 14:19
Originally posted by Mike
I wouldn't normally bother to post in so much detail any more - it's a losing battle against ignorance and I'm not sure that my age and vanity are being tempered by tolerance any more - but due to work and other commitments which will limit my online time I am leaving the forums and I wanted to express how I feel.
Good luck with your career and 'other commitments', Mike. You'll be sorely missed. I'll look forward to reading your next review on DVDTimes.
Mike, just like to thank you for your insightful comments re all things film related on the forum - I've always appreciated your knowledgeable posts.
Glad to note you will still be contributing reviews to DVD Times - hopefully your enthusiasm for the medium will continue to shine through your reviews (I particularly enjoyed some of your Bond reviews).
Ah well, I'm away to watch a Brian De Palma film...Untouchables perhaps ;)
Dave Lawrence
22-01-2002, 19:32
Good luck Mike, sorry to see you go.
Couple of points - DVD Debate had Wild Bunch down for a R2 re-release this year, so it may be worth waiting for a few months.
phlebas - re-read Mike's post, he indicates that it wasn't just you in particular that caused him to leave.
I think the 3rd man is a film which requires a certain mood and patience. I do not think I could have appreciated this film when I was in my teens.
The film has a beautiful pace and the camera angles make Vienna look like a very menacing place.
THe ferris wheel scene, the doorway scene and the final long shot must be in the top 100 most magical moment of cinema list.
I love the music.
I bought the soundtrack - when I listen in my car I am transported to the world of Holly Martins, post-war Vienna and cooookooo clocks - so long Holly!
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.