'Third Man on the Mountain' just barely makes for a good film.
That's mostly thanks to the premise, which I rather like. It has an admirable message and you can't help but feel happy for the lead. However, for much of the 105 minute run time I felt quite bored as not much happens: it was talk, talk followed by climb followed by more talking. I think how well the film is shot helps overcome the sluggish parts.
The cast are pretty solid. James MacArthur is a little less wooden than he is in 1958's 'The Light in the Forest', though I don't actually mind his acting style. Michael Rennie is certainly, at least to me, the star of this. He gives a cool and charismatic performance as Winter. A few of the others are decent, but the female characters are just as pointless as you'd unfortunately expect.
I think it's the iffy pacing and lack of an in-depth storyline that are the reasons as to why I felt like it drags. Still, I did connect with Rudi's story in the end which is the point I guess.
Shout by r96skBlockedParent2020-06-18T15:00:40Z
'Third Man on the Mountain' just barely makes for a good film.
That's mostly thanks to the premise, which I rather like. It has an admirable message and you can't help but feel happy for the lead. However, for much of the 105 minute run time I felt quite bored as not much happens: it was talk, talk followed by climb followed by more talking. I think how well the film is shot helps overcome the sluggish parts.
The cast are pretty solid. James MacArthur is a little less wooden than he is in 1958's 'The Light in the Forest', though I don't actually mind his acting style. Michael Rennie is certainly, at least to me, the star of this. He gives a cool and charismatic performance as Winter. A few of the others are decent, but the female characters are just as pointless as you'd unfortunately expect.
I think it's the iffy pacing and lack of an in-depth storyline that are the reasons as to why I felt like it drags. Still, I did connect with Rudi's story in the end which is the point I guess.