ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

GManfred On a roll with adjectives, I thought "Three Strangers" was, in fact, unconvincing as well as unsatisfying, while at the same time mildly entertaining. The story is flawed, a very surprising adjective, as it was written by no less than John Huston, who wrote the screenplay for "Treasure of The Sierra Madre" and "The Maltese Falcon". It starts off well but then tails off into the lives of the three people, who do not meet again until the end of the picture. The bulk of the movie deals with the private lives of the three, which turn out to be disparate if not sensational. The fault is Huston's, as he did not inject their tedious lives with enough flair or spice.Once again, as in 'The Verdict", the heroes are an obese senior citizen and a geeky Hungarian. Once again, it works. Lorre comes out OK, but towards the end Greenstreet, an effective actor if he stays within his range, is asked to extend himself and overacts. Geraldine Fitzgerald is given a thankless role as a calculating shrew, not nearly up to her heartbreaking Oscar nom role in "Wuthering Heights".In my opinion a couple of scenes needed another take and look rushed and half-hearted, but my overriding thought is that when this situation is coupled with the unlikable principals and a pedestrian storyline, it all adds up in my mind to a rating of 6 for a flawed, unconvincing movie.

Martin Teller A woman entices two strangers to her home to fulfill an unusual Chinese prophecy, granting a wish... in this case, a horse race ticket that they hope to be a winner. With a screenplay by John Huston and appearances by Lorre and Greenstreet, and a figurine as a major plot device, you might expect a MALTESE FALCON retread. But this is a very different story. I hesitate to call it noir, although it does have some of the visual stylization and explores some of man's darker impulses. But it's really more of a triptych character study. The three represent different moral stances: Fitzgerald is conniving and ruthless, Greenstreet does something wrong but at least has enough decency to be conflicted about it, and Lorre is simply a carefree drunk who trusts the wrong people. I didn't count the minutes, but it felt like Lorre got the most screen time, and deservedly so. I don't know if I've ever seen a better performance from him, certainly not a more likable one. He's a charming character with a thoughtful outlook on life. His story also has the benefit of wonderful turns by Peter Whitney and especially Joan Lorring, a very appealing actress I've never seen before, but I'm delighted to see appears in a few more noirs I intended to see. Greenstreet's and Fitzgerald's plot threads are interesting as well, and the way all they come together and resolve at the end is satisfying. It's a quirky film with a very good script, quite fulfilling.

MartinHafer This is a "turn off your brain and enjoy" film. In other words, if you think through how silly the plot is, you'll most likely grow tired of the film and fail to see it to the end. However, if you can suppress that urge, then you might just find the whole thing quite enjoyable.The film begins with Geraldine Fitzgerald finding two strangers (Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre) and convincing them to come to her apartment (it's not THAT kind of film--relax). There, she tells them a strange tale that some Chinese goddess can grant wishes if three strangers all simultaneously wish for the exact same thing at the stroke of midnight (yeah, right). They all decide to wish for a winning sweepstakes ticket. In the meantime, they'll write up an agreement to share the proceeds equally. Then, after that's concluded, they all say a silent prayer to the goddess at midnight.Upon leaving, the film then shows the lives of all three characters--all of which turn out to be very screwed up indeed. Fitzgerald turns out to be a vindictive Borderline Personality who delights in making her estranged husband miserable. You assume that sooner or later he would kill her because her actions are so pointless and mean. Peter Lorre is hiding out with another man, as they are implicated for murder. However, Lorre DIDN'T commit the crime--he's just an alcoholic who was with the wrong people at the wrong time. Finally, Greenstreet is a supposedly reputable solicitor (sort of like a lawyer who does not do criminal law, for those other Americans out there). However, he's really begun playing in the stock markets with his client's trust fund and throughout the film this problem gets worse and worse.Actually, all three of the stories are quite compelling and I really wish the film had found some other way to string them all together other than the silly goddess plot device. I also liked how all three characters came back together at the end of the tale. But the whole wishing on a Buddhist statue at midnight angle just made my head hurt. With a bit of a re-write this could have been an exceptional film. As it is, it's goofy and strange but quite intriguing if you can slog through the silly stuff.

dougdoepke The story may get confusing, even muddled, but the visuals continue to shine. This is the golden age of black and white photography from the studios. There's a dreamy quality to the low key lighting that keeps the eye riveted even when the story line falters. Ace director Jean Negulesco certainly knows how to put a sheen on even difficult material.Scripters Huston and Koch appear to be following on 1941's Maltese Falcon with Lorre and Greenstreet and a statuette with perhaps mystical powers. The format is unusual for its time. The screenplay interweaves three story lines using the statuette and a sweepstakes ticket as an axis. None of the three story lines, however, really gels. Perhaps it's the editing or the script that gives the shifting back and forth a disjointed quality that's sometimes hard to follow. But none of the three strands follow-up well on that intriguing initial scene in Fitzgerald's apartment. (Note her clinging gown in that scene. I'm surprised it got past the censors.)Anyway, it's always a treat to watch such stylish presences as the imperious Greenstreet and the sly-fox Lorre play-off one another. There's been no one like them before or since. And, for once, Lorre gets a sympathetic role and even the girl (Loring). Then too, it's probably not surprising that the dipso character Lorre plays comes-off best since writer Huston was himself a notorious boozer. The scene that lingers for me is where Greenstreet uses his oily charm on the pixilated Lady Beladon (Rosalind Ivan) who turns out to be shrewder than he thought. I gather that the movie's last scene-- in addition to its irony-- intends to say something profound about the role of fate in our lives. I take the point to be that some unseen hand may control the fortune of lottery tickets, but the hand for all its mystical force cannot determine what we do with them. For the fate-obsessed 1940's this was an unusual gesture to the power of free-will. But, metaphysics aside, it's the power of the camera that continues to hold this stylish pastiche together.