BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

krocheav What a surprise this seemingly little remembered film turns out to be. For those who like their movies cloaked in dramatic irony, this should please. Terrific performances drive an intelligent (if sardonic) script by John Huston and Howard Koch. It's fueled by thought provoking situations that twist and turn like an angry sidewinder. Perhaps one of the best Lorre/ Greenstreet pairings of its time.Lorre has some especially profound dialog in a part quite unlike many others given to him. Director Gene Negulesco and prolific orchestral arranger Murray Cutter create some marvelous moods. Of special note is a scene between Lorre and Joan Lorring set under a foggy London pier. Take a close look, then listen to the atmospheric sound-scape created to bring his dialog to melancholy life!. Lorre has another unique scene in a park as he talks to a monkey in sign language. Many nice touches all the way through.Fitzgerald's character is also unlike any other I've seen her play. This woman is vindictively scary to say the least. Even Alan Napier has a major part to play as the deluded husband. It's not run of the mill entertainment and Warner's probably took it out of circulation early in its day. If you can enjoy a different approach to your entertainment (slightly less commercial but still very stylized) you should not be disappointed with this work. Won't be for all tastes but very good of its type. Unfortunately, TCM's Australian print is disappointingly blurry and in need of a better copy.KenR...............

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.

PudgyPandaMan "It has always been man's desire to invent idols on whom he can place the responsibility for his own actions. Perhaps these three strangers in this story, whose lives have really nothing to do with each other, would never have met except for a very ancient idol: the Chinese goddess, Kwan Yin. And perhaps their separate stories might have been different except for what happened that night. And then again, perhaps not." (OPENING TITLE SCREEN)And so begins THREE STRANGERS. It sounded interesting enough.But in the end, I didn't particularly care for this film. That mostly stems from the fact that it's based on the lives of selfish, self-absorbed people looking to change their fortunes.It looks rather low budget as nothing really impressed me with the sets or the cinematography. The acting was adequate, but ultimately couldn't overcome the problem for me with the characters in general.Mostly, it was a film full of unlikeable people - with the exception of Peter Lorre's character. He was the least offensive of the three main characters although still a drunken crook - but he seemed less harmful.In the end, I couldn't have cared less what happened with any of the people in this film. I think the premise could have been interesting - the idea of 3 people's lives intertwined because of a winning lottery ticket. But ultimately, it failed to deliver.

bkoganbing The time is 1938 London before the World War. A woman of mystery, Geraldine Fitzgerald, invites two perfect strangers played by Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet up to her apartment. She's a believer in the ancient Chinese god of Kwan Lin and it's said that if Three Strangers wish on that deity and their's is the same wish it will be granted. In this case the wish is money and it's in the form of a sweepstakes ticket that Peter Lorre has purchased and who gives two thirds away to Fitzgerald and Greenstreet in the hope of fortune coming their way.After this we see a glimpse of the lives of the three people. Lorre is a petty criminal who's gotten himself into a beautiful jackpot being accused of a murder that he didn't commit. Fitzgerald is a shrewish wife who stays married to an unhappy Alan Napier who just wants to be free to marry Marjorie Riordan. This is a harbinger of a role that Fitzgerald really perfected a dozen years later in Ten North Frederick. As for Greenstreet, he's a solicitor, an attorney of no great significance in the legal profession, an English version of a man whose name I was once threatened with named Abe Hecht. It's now become a synonym for cheap shysters with me. Anyway Greenstreet's the trustee of an estate he's been dipping into. He wants to make a financial killing real bad because he thinks that money will buy him respectability which he craves like nothing else.The film is like a 90 minute version of a Twilight Zone episode, but that's not a putdown because some really classic stuff was done on that program. The script was written by Howard Koch and John Huston and directed by Jean Negulesco. I'm surprised Huston did not want to direct this one himself, but Jean Negulesco got some of the best performances that members of the cast ever gave on screen, especially from the three leads.Notice no really big movie names are in this cast, no leading men screen legends. That may have been an asset to the film because it concentrates on the story and the characters created. The ironic fates of all three of the sweepstakes ticket sharers could have come right out of the imaginative mind of Rod Serling. And Peter Lorre is actually allowed a little romance in a movie. That alone makes Three Strangers absolutely priceless.Three Strangers is a B picture gem, one of those low budget sleepers that Hollywood puts out to great critical acclaim that turn a profit because of the low budget. And this review is dedicated to that attorney Abe Hecht whom I never met and to his idiot brother-in-law Morris Stetch who threatened me with him back in 1979. To see if Greenstreet obtains the status of a Clarence Darrow and rises from Abe Hechtdom, don't miss Three Strangers.